Inside Experts: The role of in-house lawyers in protecting corporations
The Occupy Wall Street movements Human Worth Amendment states, A corporate entity is not a person and, therefore, is not entitled to the rights and protections set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America for human-beings.
November 18, 2011 at 05:00 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Occupy Wall Street movement's Human Worth Amendment states, “A corporate entity is not a person and, therefore, is not entitled to the rights and protections set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America for human-beings.”
The immediate impetus behind the statement is the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowing corporations to fund political speech. But there may be more than just campaign law under challenge. Putting aside politics, and looking at the Occupy movement's general sentiment against corporations on a professional level, it seems to me that the protesters are posting the very fundamental question of whether corporations should be allowed to continue as self-directing business organizations, managing their own money and affairs, sanctioned and protected by laws.
What part do in-house lawyers play in this conflict, either as part of the problem that is being railed against, or as part of a solution?
By definition, an in-house lawyer is a lawyer who works for a corporation, either closely held, publicly traded, parent or subsidiary. As UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge says in his blog, “Remarks on In House Counsel as Gatekeepers,” “When a corporation hires a lawyer, the lawyer represents the corporation and its shareholders, not the managers.” The American concept of the corporation—shareholders elect directors who oversee officers—is a governance model for charting and working towards business goals, and for imposing checks and balances against risky or morally hazardous behavior, though not always successfully, e.g., Enron. More than anyone else, in-house lawyers are positioned to distinguish between the management and the corporate entity itself, and to help ensure that corporate governance is carried out effectively. As Bainbridge points out, when in-house lawyers forget their true reporting line to directors and shareholders, and become complicit with management, companies get into trouble.
In-house lawyers ensure that companies maintain their legal status as a corporation, often by serving as company secretary. As far back as the 19th century, statutes authorizing the formation of corporations have limited shareholders' liability to their stock investment (officers and directors are still liable for torts and crimes). If asked to name their single most important responsibility, most in-house lawyers would answer, “Protect the company.” Maintaining corporate status is the first and best tool in-house lawyers have for mitigating liability. It stretches from keeping board meeting minutes, to incorporating and using affiliates to conduct business, to obtaining authorized signatures for documents. These tasks can be mundane and heavy on paperwork, yet they underlie all other in-house legal responsibilities.
While corporations are a creature of statute, they are also made up of people who make decisions on behalf of the corporation. Over the course of my in-house career, I have learned to look for agreement among my business side colleagues before acting or responding. For Type A personalities like me, this can be a hard rule to follow. But there came a point when I realized, literally, that the word “corporate” means a group of people working together, and that I didn't need to feel like I had to go it alone to do my job. I also learned to develop formal company policies for how to perform my job, document them, and then follow them down to the letter. If exceptions are to be made, I allow the escalation process to play out and the business side to make a strong enough case for making the exception. Policies ensure the company's interests are served in day to day operations, regardless of who in the company is involved or the circumstances.
I also promote my company's products when opportunities present themselves. Corporations only exist to produce goods and services of some kind. There is no such thing as a corporation dedicated to evil like Virtucon from the Austin Powers movies, though the Occupy protesters would seem to think so. A number of years ago, I spoke at an all-day law conference in Boston on the topic of application service providers (ASPs). A panel of lawyers from a well-known enterprise resource planning software company also gave a presentation. To me, they sounded more like sales people than lawyers. I came away from the conference thinking their presentation was inappropriate. But the more I thought about it, the more impressed I became by the energy they put into promoting their company's product. Ever since then, I have tried, in my own style, to pitch my company. If you don't feel comfortable promoting your company's products, you should not say anything bad about them.
To sum up, here are four principles all in-house lawyer should follow in their jobs:
- Recognize that responsibility ultimately is owed to the shareholders.
- Maintain corporate governance mechanisms and the company's corporate status.
- Make decisions as a member of a group according to company policies.
- Promote the company's products, or at least never say anything bad.
The above is not an apology for corporations. Corporations do bad things. How the company invests or doesn't invest its money, how the executives use the corporate jet, the lengths the company goes to avoid paying taxes, whether the company looks the other way while suppliers use child labor—I don't think there is any clear, right way for in-house lawyers to deal with what they may consider unconscionable corporate behavior. I don't think leaking or publicizing through social media is ever justified. I don't think whistleblowing is always the right thing to do, to the extent it is permissible for an in-house lawyer to blow the whistle. I would do my best to first raise objectionable or illegal activities to executive management. Recognizing that doing so has a potential downside, such as unemployment, I would consider contacting management either anonymously or presenting concerns in a business-like way that pointed out the harm to the company if nothing is done.
I believe if I am employed by a company, I owe my loyalty to that company. Loyalty is something more than the attorney-client privilege or a duty of confidentiality. It is respect for the fact that somewhere along the line there was a lot of hard work and risk-taking and talent that went into building the company, and that a lot of people have invested not just money but their hopes for the future in the company. I'm not interested in tearing that down.
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 asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhat to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute readTesla, Musk Appeal Chancery Compensation Case to Delaware Supreme Court
2 minute readFatal Shooting of CEO Sets Off Scramble to Reassess Executive Security
5 minute readBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
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