Just Another Collar: White-Collar Defense Lawyers Adopt Different Tactics
White-collar defense lawyers left with fewer options in new era of FCPA enforcement.
February 28, 2010 at 07:00 PM
5 minute read
The January Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) sting operation that nabbed 22 gun-industry executives–21 of them arrested at a Las Vegas trade show–changes the white-collar defense landscape markedly. The bust was the result of a classic undercover operation, complete with elaborate ruses, false identities and the key collaboration of an executive who was caught and flipped.
But as law enforcement escalates its war on FCPA crimes and expands its repertoire of tactics, white-collar lawyers are left with fewer options for defense.
“The biggest change for us will be way we advise our clients. If law enforcement is doing a sting operation, a lot more is unknown,” says Pat Brady, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg.
As the feds ramped up the intensity on FCPA over the last decade, the focus was on self-disclosure. Defense lawyers could counsel their clients on what to disclose, when to disclose it and the extent of any other cooperation with investigators, all of which would be weighed by prosecutors before indictment and ultimately figures into sentencing.
But an undercover sting skips that dance and proceeds directly to the arrest. Defense counsel then face a defense strategy more akin to mob and drug trials. It's a dramatic indicator of just how much white-collar prosecution has evolved. The lines between what had been treated as separate classes of criminal are blurring. In practical terms, white-collar sting may be just another collar.
“Thirty years ago the mentality was, 'Nobody's dead, nobody's going to jail.' Now white-collar crime is viewed much more seriously,” Brady says. “But recently we've seen some major sentences, both in terms of jail time and fines. Hey, they dedicated 150 agents to this sting. They don't want to plead it out to probation.”
The January Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) sting operation that nabbed 22 gun-industry executives–21 of them arrested at a Las Vegas trade show–changes the white-collar defense landscape markedly. The bust was the result of a classic undercover operation, complete with elaborate ruses, false identities and the key collaboration of an executive who was caught and flipped.
But as law enforcement escalates its war on FCPA crimes and expands its repertoire of tactics, white-collar lawyers are left with fewer options for defense.
“The biggest change for us will be way we advise our clients. If law enforcement is doing a sting operation, a lot more is unknown,” says Pat Brady, a partner at
As the feds ramped up the intensity on FCPA over the last decade, the focus was on self-disclosure. Defense lawyers could counsel their clients on what to disclose, when to disclose it and the extent of any other cooperation with investigators, all of which would be weighed by prosecutors before indictment and ultimately figures into sentencing.
But an undercover sting skips that dance and proceeds directly to the arrest. Defense counsel then face a defense strategy more akin to mob and drug trials. It's a dramatic indicator of just how much white-collar prosecution has evolved. The lines between what had been treated as separate classes of criminal are blurring. In practical terms, white-collar sting may be just another collar.
“Thirty years ago the mentality was, 'Nobody's dead, nobody's going to jail.' Now white-collar crime is viewed much more seriously,” Brady says. “But recently we've seen some major sentences, both in terms of jail time and fines. Hey, they dedicated 150 agents to this sting. They don't want to plead it out to probation.”
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 AllInside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
AT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
How Gen AI Is Changing Legal Work for In-House Counsel
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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