In an effort to bridge the gap between traditional law firm structures and the needs of the newest generation of attorneys, MCCA recently conducted a survey of young attorneys. Here, the results of the survey, including thoughts and insights about the practice of law as seen by this generation of lawyers.
The Policy-Making Process: Role and Responsibility of ACC's Board of Directors, National Committees, Chapters and Staff
The inquiry asks whether an employer’s request that its in-house counsel execute restrictive covenants as a term and condition of employment violates the Rules of Professional Conduct.
This brief filed by Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) and the US Chamber focuses on issues that create additional personal liabilities for in-house counsel and defense counsel in general; the zealous representation, level of communication and overall relationship of in-house counsel and their clients; and Document retention policies and the resulting liabilities for those who administer them.
ABA letter to state bar leaders regarding attorney-client privilege and work product policies promoted in the "Holder Memo" and "Thompson Memo".
A brief arguing that the lower court erred when it instructed the jury that a corporate defendant could be held criminal responsible for the conduct of a single low-level employee even if he or she acted in direct contravention of corporate policy and a robust compliance program.
A motion for leave to file an amicus brief and attached letter arguing that in-house lawyers who are litigating the client's cases should be allowed access to documents in litigation.
ACC's Southern California Chapter sent a letter to California Assemblyman Harmon in support of Assembly Bill 1133, which he is sponsoring in the California legislature that would clearly codify that inadvertant disclosure of an attorney-client privileged confidence does not waive the privilege. ACCA-So-Cal's letter argues that while the majority of California courts have interpreted the existing law of the state to mean that only an intentional disclosure results in the loss of protection, ambiguities in the language of California Evidence Code § 912 leave open the possibility that protection may be lost through inadvertent disclosure. Potential loss of confidentiality through inadvertent disclosure is an increasing problem as accidental disclosures become more common through the use of electronic communication such as voicemail and e-mail. For example, a person could easily click the wrong button and accidentally send an e-mail to the wrong recipient. For in-house counsel, eroding the privilege's protections by allowing inadvertent disclosures to constitute waiver will only serve to stifle otherwise appropriate communications that are critical in assuring the solicitation and provision of proper legal advice and accurate public disclosures.
A brief arguing the ethical obligation not to sue the client belongs to all attorneys, including in-house attorneys.