One of the trends that we see developing in the new decade is a significant rise in corporate investigations by government agencies. We’ve previously written about how Pennsylvania’s Rules of Professional Conduct govern a company’s efforts to both defend itself and permit it to pay for and provide appropriate counsel for its employees and other witnesses. (See our article headlined “When Three Isn’t a Crowd: It’s OK to Take Payment from a Third Party” published in The Legal July 6, 2007.)
In New Jersey, however, the propriety of third-party payment was subject to question. See In re Abrams , which says: “It is inherently wrong to represent both the employer and the employee if the employee’s interest may, and the public interest will, be advanced by the employee’s disclosure of his employer’s criminal conduct. For the same reasons, it is also inherently wrong for an attorney who represents only the employee to accept a promise to pay from one whose criminal liability may turn on the employee’s testimony.”
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
