Law students learn in-house counsel responsibilities with role-playing
SUNY Buffalo Law School offers a unique class about life as an in-house counsel.
June 30, 2011 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
I believe that an effective in-house counsel is, at base, a great teacher. Let's face it: If you can get sales professionals (who tend to have the attention span of ferrets on a double espresso) to understand the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, you must be an outstanding teacher. If you have ever desired to ply these rare skills to teaching a law school class, then I have a suggested class for which you already have unique subject matter expertise: in-house practice.
I have taught a class on the unique aspects of being an in-house counsel for seven years at SUNY Buffalo Law School, my alma mater. I had often thought that a law school class examining in-house practice might be interesting to law students, particularly as the job has dramatically changed in recent years. So when the dean of my law school was on his annual West Coast “alumni relations” tour and asked if there was anything he could do for me, I proposed the idea of teaching a class. The anxiety of creating a class from scratch and teaching it to really bright law students (the school must have raised the admissions standards after I graduated) set in.
I developed the class around two themes: the role of in-house counsel and unique ethical issues in-house counsel face. Traditional law school curriculum has done little to educate lawyers about the role of the in-house lawyer and our emergence as a strategic force in the corporate setting. Granted, most law students do not march right into legal departments upon graduation. The class endeavors, therefore, to sensitize the students to the issues, pressures and politics faced by in-house lawyers with the hope that familiarity and empathy with these challenges will make those them more effective outside counsel.
As for the ethics focus, the first 11 years of this century have produced plenty of unfortunate case studies of in-house lawyers falling under government scrutiny and failing their ethical obligations. These examples highlight common ways in which in-house lawyers negligently or intentionally fail to act in the best interest of the client. To curtail the continued swelling of these regrettable lapses, these case studies are worthy of meticulous exploration in a law school setting.
To illustrate the complexity of these ethical issues, I teach the class mostly through role-playing. The students assume the role of an in-house lawyer. The scenarios force the students to manage conflicted business partners and consider up-the-ladder or external reporting. This helps sensitize the students to the myriad considerations and consequences of properly discharging their ethical obligations.
The final exam is modeled after in-house practice. I assign each student a different time to pick up his or her exam and ask him or her to return to the exam room 30 minutes later. The exam presents a fact pattern that raises a number of ethical issues. At the appointed time, the student and I role-play, with the student as the in-house counsel and me as the headstrong CEO or chairman. While these exams take time to administer (I have limited the class to 15 students), they replicate the time pressures and political realities of being an in-house counsel.
Be warned: There is no model curriculum or even textbook for a class on in-house practice. Since I began teaching this class, I have learned that others have independently developed similar classes. Still, none of us have exchanged material (at least to my knowledge). Developing and updating these materials is time-consuming but will force you to stay current on critically important developments.
If you are interested in teaching a class like mine, then reach out to a local dean. Thereafter, I will be happy to partner with you in providing this important education. Brian Martin is SVP and general counsel of KLA-Tencor Corp. Send your comments and best ethics practices to him at [email protected].
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 AllBeyond the Title: Developing a Personal Brand as General Counsel
Step 1 for Successful Negotiators: Believe in Yourself
Deluge of Trump-Leery Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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