SuperConference Ethics Boot Camp surveys ethical issues in-house counsel face
While the American Bar Associations Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide a framework for in-house attorneys to follow in dealing with ethical questions, they leave plenty of room for discretion that can make compliance difficult.
April 23, 2012 at 01:05 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
While the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide a framework for in-house attorneys to follow in dealing with ethical questions, they leave plenty of room for discretion that can make compliance difficult.
So, in the first of two “Ethics Boot Camp” sessions at InsideCounsel's SuperConference, Brian Martin, general counsel of TLA-Tencor Corp., reviewed the Model Rules and offered several scenarios of corporate misconduct to spark discussion about the appropriate steps an in-house attorney should take.
The evolution of in-house counsel from a strictly legal role to business partners has complicated the ethical issues, Martin said. “The trend of in-house counsel being business advisors raises potential serious conflicts of interest,” he said.
However, many in-house departments still don't conduct training on ethics, he said.
“Resorting to self-help and letting your lawyers figure it out on their own is not the way to go,” Martin said. He suggested that the attendees use the slides and scenarios developed for the boot camp to conduct in-house ethics training.
Martin, who authors an ethics column for InsideCounsel, offered three other best practice suggestions:
- Identify someone in the legal department to track ethics decisions on the state and national levels, or ask your outside counsel to prepare an annual presentation to ensure that your team stays up to date on ethics issues
- Be careful of words that suggest to executives or business managers that you have an attorney-client relationship with them, for example, by referring to them as “clients”
- Find an ethical company to hire you. That means assessing the ethical culture before you take the job, and asking questions during the interview process that reveal that culture. “We all want to be steering the ship rather than addressing the shipwreck,” Martin said.
While the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide a framework for in-house attorneys to follow in dealing with ethical questions, they leave plenty of room for discretion that can make compliance difficult.
So, in the first of two “Ethics Boot Camp” sessions at InsideCounsel's SuperConference, Brian Martin, general counsel of TLA-Tencor Corp., reviewed the Model Rules and offered several scenarios of corporate misconduct to spark discussion about the appropriate steps an in-house attorney should take.
The evolution of in-house counsel from a strictly legal role to business partners has complicated the ethical issues, Martin said. “The trend of in-house counsel being business advisors raises potential serious conflicts of interest,” he said.
However, many in-house departments still don't conduct training on ethics, he said.
“Resorting to self-help and letting your lawyers figure it out on their own is not the way to go,” Martin said. He suggested that the attendees use the slides and scenarios developed for the boot camp to conduct in-house ethics training.
Martin, who authors an ethics column for InsideCounsel, offered three other best practice suggestions:
- Identify someone in the legal department to track ethics decisions on the state and national levels, or ask your outside counsel to prepare an annual presentation to ensure that your team stays up to date on ethics issues
- Be careful of words that suggest to executives or business managers that you have an attorney-client relationship with them, for example, by referring to them as “clients”
- Find an ethical company to hire you. That means assessing the ethical culture before you take the job, and asking questions during the interview process that reveal that culture. “We all want to be steering the ship rather than addressing the shipwreck,” Martin said.
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 AllGCs Jettisoning Zero-Based Budgeting in Quest to Be Nimble, More Efficient
3 minute readFoley & Lardner Litigator Joins Brewers Roster as Legal Chief
Mary O'Carroll on Her Move to Goodwin: Law Firms Are at the Heart of Industry Disruption
'This Is a Huge Miss!': More Companies Requiring JDs for Legal Ops Roles, a Trend Vets of the Field Call Nonsensical
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
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