3rd Circuit Clarifies Rules for Retaining Counsel for Targeted Employees
Ruling makes it tougher to lawyer up in traditional way
January 31, 2010 at 07:00 PM
13 minute read
When Laidlaw International Inc. learned in 2007 that the company and three employees were the target of a New Jersey grand jury investigation, directors responded by initiating a legal version of circle the wagons. The company entered into retainer agreements with four lawyers, three of them representing the three targeted employees and the fourth for all current and former employees who were not targeted.
White-collar criminal defense lawyers say that this practice–companies picking up the legal tab for individual employees who could become witnesses against the company–is not unusual. But in this case, the New Jersey Department of Criminal Justice objected and filed a motion in the trial court to disqualify the company-paid lawyers for the individuals. The trial court rejected the state's motion on the grounds that the practice is acceptable as long as the agreements satisfy several Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs), and on Nov. 23, 2009, the Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the lower court.
While the ruling in In the Matter of the State Grand Investigation does not constitute new law, lawyers say that it helps to clarify and perhaps strengthen the rules under which companies can create retainer arrangements for the benefit of employees when prosecutors target them.
According to Vincent P. Sarubbi, a partner at Archer & Greiner, the ruling will make it tougher for companies under criminal investigation to “lawyer up” in the same way they did previously.
“It was not uncommon for [companies] to give employees a list of attorneys they know have worked together and with whom they have a loose affiliation,” he says. “I'm not suggesting that [the lawyers] would do anything to breach their duty of loyalty to clients, but I think they would have a tendency to cooperate with corporate counsel and the corporation because they have a relationship.”
One Master Only
The court ruling will make communication between retained lawyers and in-house counsel more difficult, Sarubbi says. In its ruling, the court noted that Laidlaw satisfied the RPCs with language in the retention letters that the lawyers are “not required” to disclose legal strategies or theories and that payment of legal fees does not depend on such disclosures. But the court went a step further, saying, “[T]he better practice is to affirmatively state that the lawyer will not disclose any part of the substance of the representation of the client to the third-party payer.”
“The question defense counsel have to ask themselves now is whether they can pick up the phone and talk with corporate counsel about issues like joint defense,” Sarubbi says. “This could have a chilling effect on the issue of joint defenses.”
But according to Michael Himmel, a member at Lowenstein Sandler, this is the point of the ruling. “The RPCs say you can have one master and one master only,” he says. “When you start doing things to the benefit of another master, you're breaching your responsibilities under the rules.”
Risky Arrangements
In any event, says Herve Gouraige, a member at Epstein Becker & Green, the practice is always fraught with risk.
“When the company is the target of a criminal investigation and the company is paying lawyers to represent individuals who are potential witnesses against the company, you come pretty close to–if not going over the line of–obstruction of justice,” he says.
Another more practical concern for companies embarking on these retainer arrangements is loss of control over legal costs. The ruling imposes a requirement that a court must approve any stoppage of payments.
Lawyers who are retained to represent individuals in criminal investigations also face risks. “Let's assume the client is a potentially devastating witness for the company,” Gouraige says. “What the person has to say to the prosecutor or the grand jury could sink the company. It's going to be very difficult for a lawyer not to consider that in advising his or her client.”
Although the state Supreme Court opinion doesn't mention other alternatives for provision of legal services for employees who can't afford it, Gouraige points out that turning to court-
appointed attorneys might be a better option, “particularly when you've got an individual who's going to be a key witness against the company.”
Despite the fact that the court has apparently tightened the rules in these retainer arrangements, Gouraige believes that its approval of them means that companies will use them more often and more cases like Laidlaw International's will make their way into court.
“I think you're going to see more cases of companies trying to control who represents the individuals or companies trying to cut off the legal fees. There may even be cases where prosecutors are going to claim that the company's conduct amounts to obstruction of justice,” he says.
Meanwhile, at least some white-collar criminal-defense lawyers in New Jersey are advising clients to create internal policies that mimic the Supreme Court ruling.
“We're telling corporate counsel that they may have a duty to make sure that whoever is hired understands this [ruling] going forward and that they expect the attorney to comply with these conditions,” Sarubbi says.
When Laidlaw International Inc. learned in 2007 that the company and three employees were the target of a New Jersey grand jury investigation, directors responded by initiating a legal version of circle the wagons. The company entered into retainer agreements with four lawyers, three of them representing the three targeted employees and the fourth for all current and former employees who were not targeted.
White-collar criminal defense lawyers say that this practice–companies picking up the legal tab for individual employees who could become witnesses against the company–is not unusual. But in this case, the New Jersey Department of Criminal Justice objected and filed a motion in the trial court to disqualify the company-paid lawyers for the individuals. The trial court rejected the state's motion on the grounds that the practice is acceptable as long as the agreements satisfy several Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs), and on Nov. 23, 2009, the Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the lower court.
While the ruling in In the Matter of the State Grand Investigation does not constitute new law, lawyers say that it helps to clarify and perhaps strengthen the rules under which companies can create retainer arrangements for the benefit of employees when prosecutors target them.
According to Vincent P. Sarubbi, a partner at
“It was not uncommon for [companies] to give employees
One Master Only
The court ruling will make communication between retained lawyers and in-house counsel more difficult, Sarubbi says. In its ruling, the court noted that Laidlaw satisfied the RPCs with language in the retention letters that the lawyers are “not required” to disclose legal strategies or theories and that payment of legal fees does not depend on such disclosures. But the court went a step further, saying, “[T]he better practice is to affirmatively state that the lawyer will not disclose any part of the substance of the representation of the client to the third-party payer.”
“The question defense counsel have to ask themselves now is whether they can pick up the phone and talk with corporate counsel about issues like joint defense,” Sarubbi says. “This could have a chilling effect on the issue of joint defenses.”
But according to Michael Himmel, a member at
Risky Arrangements
In any event, says Herve Gouraige, a member at
“When the company is the target of a criminal investigation and the company is paying lawyers to represent individuals who are potential witnesses against the company, you come pretty close to–if not going over the line of–obstruction of justice,” he says.
Another more practical concern for companies embarking on these retainer arrangements is loss of control over legal costs. The ruling imposes a requirement that a court must approve any stoppage of payments.
Lawyers who are retained to represent individuals in criminal investigations also face risks. “Let's assume the client is a potentially devastating witness for the company,” Gouraige says. “What the person has to say to the prosecutor or the grand jury could sink the company. It's going to be very difficult for a lawyer not to consider that in advising his or her client.”
Although the state Supreme Court opinion doesn't mention other alternatives for provision of legal services for employees who can't afford it, Gouraige points out that turning to court-
appointed attorneys might be a better option, “particularly when you've got an individual who's going to be a key witness against the company.”
Despite the fact that the court has apparently tightened the rules in these retainer arrangements, Gouraige believes that its approval of them means that companies will use them more often and more cases like Laidlaw International's will make their way into court.
“I think you're going to see more cases of companies trying to control who represents the individuals or companies trying to cut off the legal fees. There may even be cases where prosecutors are going to claim that the company's conduct amounts to obstruction of justice,” he says.
Meanwhile, at least some white-collar criminal-defense lawyers in New Jersey are advising clients to create internal policies that mimic the Supreme Court ruling.
“We're telling corporate counsel that they may have a duty to make sure that whoever is hired understands this [ruling] going forward and that they expect the attorney to comply with these conditions,” Sarubbi says.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMental Health In The Workplace: Reasonable Accommodations Are Not One-Size-Fits-All
6 minute readPhotronics GC Placed on Leave in June Departs—With Company Paying an Extra Year of Salary
Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
'You Don't Know Everything': GCs Say Success Leading Nonlegal Functions Starts With Humility
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Nicholas M. DePalma and Christian R. Schreiber of Venable have stepped in to represent CP Management Services, CRS RB4 Holdings and other defendants in a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The suit was filed Aug. 30 in Virginia Eastern District Court by Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Daito Kentaku USA. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton, is 1:24-cv-01538, Daito Kentaku USA, LLC v. Comstock Partners, LC.
Who Got The Work
Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs partner Andrew J. Pulliam has entered an appearance for Steve Jensen in a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The action, filed Aug. 30 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the Law Office of Perry A. Craft on behalf of Timothy Robins, accuses the defendant of writing a worthless check for over $94,000 for the sale of auctioned goods. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Eli J. Richardson, is 3:24-cv-01064, Robins v. Jensen et al.
Who Got The Work
Lane Powell shareholder Pilar C. French has entered an appearance for Penney OpCo LLC in a pending consumer class action. The complaint, filed Aug. 26 in Oregon District Court by Hattis & Lukacs, alleges that the company markets fictional discounts for certain products. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai, is 6:24-cv-01414, Gamble v. Penney OpCo LLC.
Who Got The Work
Donald L. Carmelite and Coryn D. Hubbert of Marshall Dennehey have stepped in to defend the City of York, Detective Roland Comacho and Detective Lisa Daniels in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Middle District Court by Levin & Zeiger on behalf of Noel Matos Montalvo, seeks damages for the amount of time that Montalvo was incarcerated over five years for the exonerated killing of his common law wife. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jennifer P. Wilson, is 1:24-cv-01459, Montalvo v. City of York, et al.
Who Got The Work
Joseph M. Englert, Brian E. Pumphrey and M. Laughlin Allen of McGuireWoods have entered appearances for Bank of America NA in a pending class action. The action was filed Aug. 26 in Georgia Northern District Court by Podhurst Orseck; Webb, Klase & Lemond; Crabtree & Auslander; and Morrison + Associates on behalf of the representative of the beneficiaries of the Arthur N. Weinraub Trust, a trust which contains residential real property. The suit accuses the defendant of overcharging the trust by selecting unnecessary and/or excessively priced insurance for the property. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr., is 1:24-cv-03780, Weinraub v. Bank of America, N.A.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250