Experts Say When General Counsel Leaves Abruptly, Board Has Duty to Ask Why
Corporate governance experts say when a company's general counsel departs—especially when the company does not know the reason for the departure—it should set off little alarm bells for the board of directors.
March 15, 2019 at 04:29 PM
4 minute read
Often there is a known reason why a company's general counsel departs—retirement, a better job or simply dismissal. But when a GC leaves abruptly and without a stated reason, it should set off little alarm bells for the board of directors, according to corporate governance experts.
Abrupt departures do happen, such as the hasty exit of general counsel Dane Butswinkas from Tesla Inc. on Feb. 20 after only two months on the job.
And when that happens, the experts told Corporate Counsel, there are key steps a board needs to take quickly, starting with a diligent inquiry into why.
A Tesla spokesman said the company doesn't comment on internal procedures such as board inquiries. Butswinkas said in a statement at the time, “I am returning to my home in Washington, D.C., and to my trial practice at Williams & Connolly.” One source said the departure was also due to a “cultural” mismatch with the company. However, Butswinkas' statement said he would continue working as outside counsel for Tesla.
Butswinkas left one day after Tesla CEO Elon Musk posted a tweet without running it by a corporate lawyer, as required by a settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over an earlier tweet. The SEC has called for Musk to be held in contempt of court for violating the settlement, but this week he contested any such action.
Corporate Counsel spoke recently with three corporate governance experts about a board's duty when a general counsel leaves abruptly. Here's what they had to say:
Michael Peregrine
The McDermott Will & Emery partner said it is absolutely the board's duty as overseer of a company to inquire into the departure. “It goes back to the Enron [Corp. scandal] days, when general counsel were either marginalized, fired for giving bad news or quit because they didn't like what was going on.”
Besides making sure nothing untoward was going on, Peregrine said the board's duty includes seeing that the company has hired the right person, is paying the GC appropriately, is not treating him or her like a lackey, and isn't concealing a deeper legal or ethical issue.
An inquiry can offer the board other key information as well. “If the general counsel was fired for performance reasons after a short time, then that says something about the company's hiring process,” Peregrine said. “Or if the general counsel felt undervalued, then the directors need to be aware of that too. The board is responsible for making sure the general counsel is a pre-eminent position in the organization.”
Not only is such an inquiry not impinging on a CEO's right to hire and fire, but Peregrine said it is the board's “fiduciary duty” to inquire.
Martin Bienenstock
The chair of Proskauer Rose's governance group said when it comes to a GC leaving, the key word is “abruptly.” If no normal reason is apparent, Bienenstock said the board needs to protect against any illegal or unethical conduct prompting the departure.
“If the general counsel quits abruptly, chances are the person has gone into the office of the CEO and said such and such needs to be done differently, otherwise it would be unethical or illegal conduct. You need to immediately use your inside or outside counsel to find out,” he said.
“Of course,” he added, “now you'll have an issue with the CEO as well, because the general counsel wouldn't quit if the CEO had backed him up.”
Jill Fisch
The University of Pennsylvania business law professor explained that not all departures require a board response. “The duty to inquire is fact-specific,” said Fisch, who is also co-director of the Institute for Law and Economics at the school.
“But I would think when any high-level officer leaves a company, the board would want to know why,” she added. “And the company may need to disclose the reason anyway under securities laws.” In Tesla's case, that was not so because Butswinkas was not one of the top five highest-paid company officers.
Fisch said she wouldn't call it a fiduciary duty, “but if I were on a board and a senior executive left, I would want to know why because it is the board's responsibility to oversee the senior executives and to replace them.”
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
© 2025 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'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readAfter Botched Landing of United Airlines Boeing 767, Unlikely Plaintiff Sues Carrier
5 minute readInside Track: Why Relentless Self-Promoters Need Not Apply for GC Posts
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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