Guide to getting the facts from your clients
John Adams once said, Facts are stubborn things.
January 31, 2012 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things.”
Good inside counsel understand that our jobs involve not only providing advice about legal risks, but understanding those risks in relation to pragmatic business goals. However, it is impossible to provide this sound advice without a deep knowledge of the specific facts surrounding the situation in which you are asked to assist. Being a good business partner requires that we develop techniques that elicit maximum relevant information. However, clients are sometimes unable to provide those stubborn but all-important facts.
The path to full information is familiar to counsel who have a background in litigation. Deposition techniques enable litigators to draw out information they can use to build cases or assess risk. Similar techniques can help all inside counsel maximize information-gathering, while at the same time building rapport with their internal clients. The following techniques apply to a variety of counsel-client interactions, including discussions regarding business proposals, crisis management, compliance investigations or assessments of the business's risk in the face of new legislation or regulation.
Prepare for the conversation. Even in this fast-paced world, counsel must take time to fully prepare for the conversation with the appropriate business partner. First, determine who in the organization will likely have the necessary information. Next, ask your client for relevant documents, review them and create a detailed list of questions before you speak with the process owners and your business partners.
Establish rapport with your “witness.” At the outset of a deposition, litigators try to establish rapport with the deponent to maximize their chances of getting the witness to volunteer information. While this may seem like a given in the context of the internal counsel-client relationship, counsel may face clients who can sometimes be reluctant to expose mistakes. Regardless, when a crisis occurs, counsel's first task is to put the client at ease and re-establish trust.
One way is to start with questions that fill in the background of business decisions leading up to the problem as opposed to getting straight to the immediate issue. Additionally, counsel should remember that business clients are focused on their immediate business goals, not necessarily on the long-term risk implications of a particular issue. Asking questions that will broaden clients' perception will help fill in your knowledge and ease the decision-making process down the road.
Keep your questions simple and direct. As with depositions, counsel should focus on who, what, where, when, why and how questions with their internal clients. Move from general questions to specific to determine what your “witness” knows and whether you need additional information from other business partners.
Insist on complete answers. Like the litigator, counsel may face deponents who provide incomplete information or ambiguous responses. Counsel must insist that business partners fully and precisely answer all questions, and may need to ask questions more than once to ensure they exhaust clients' knowledge of the subject.
Record the facts. Counsel should record necessary facts to ensure accuracy and provide support for his or her subsequent advice, keeping in mind issues of attorney-client privilege that may arise in the future.
Despite the adversarial nature of the deposition in litigation, the underlying goals of depositions—gathering evidence and building a case—are compatible with the goals of the inside counsel-client relationship. That is, counsel must obtain complete information to provide useful guidance that will advance the business's goals while appropriately mitigating risk. “Deposing” your internal clients will pull out those “stubborn facts.”
Janice Block is executive vice president, general counsel and chief compliance officer for Kaplan Inc.
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 All'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readHow Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
5 minute readAuditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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