Divorce Attorneys: In-House Counsel Should Stay Out of Executive's Divorce
Though Jeff Bezos said in a Jan. 8 tweet that he and wife are ending their marriage, it is unclear how their divorce will impact Amazon's day-to-day operations.
January 18, 2019 at 06:00 PM
3 minute read
The founder and CEO of Amazon.com Inc., Jeff Bezos, announced earlier this month on Twitter that he and his wife of 25 years plan on ending their marriage. Divorce attorneys say his in-house team will most likely not be involved in the divorce unless absolutely necessary.
Though Bezos said in the Jan. 8 tweet that he and his soon-to-be-former wife will remain friends, it is unclear how their divorce will impact Amazon's day-to-day operations.
“Ideally, with a company the size of Amazon, it is running irrespective of what is happening in their personal lives,” divorce attorney Brian L. Webb said.
Webb, the founder of Webb Family Law in Dallas, said that when he takes an executive as a client in a divorce filing he takes stock of how he would be able to use the in-house attorneys as a resource.
“Typically what you're going to do is explore to what extent you can use them as a resource and be very aware of what their conflict situation might be so that you don't inadvertently put them in an uncomfortable position,” Webb said. “They are an incredibly valuable resource.”
He said the in-house team tends to have a great knowledge of what the values and assets of the company are. But it is not a good idea to have a member of the in-house counsel team as an active member of an executive's divorce counsel team. Webb explained the executive will need someone who knows how the process works and someone who will tell them what they need to hear.
“We who do this for a living snicker about nondivorce lawyers who want to jump in,” Webb said. “It's just a different kind of an animal.”
Ultimately, it is important for the in-house team to keep doing what it usually does, Webb said. He explained that one of the more important things in-house counsel can do is to not shred documents that they would not normally shred.
Michael Stutman, a divorce attorney at Stutman, Stutman & Lichtenstein in Manhattan, said that it is important for in-house counsel to remember that they represent the company and not the personal affairs of the executive. As an outside divorce attorney, he said there may be times when trade secrets or customer lists become involved.
“However, the line between those two roles may not be as bright as everyone wishes it might be,” Stutman said. “Oftentimes, I believe an executive may not be aware that certain communications between that person and corporate counsel would not be privileged.”
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 AllHow Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
A Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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