The Policy-Making Process: Role and Responsibility of ACC's Board of Directors, National Committees, Chapters and Staff
The government indicted two executives for alleged criminal activities related to their employment. The company's bylaws provide for both advancement of fees and indemnification of these executives. The government successfully argued to the lower court that the executives' should be prevented from receiving reimbursements under the indemnification policies. Indemnification policies serve important public and internal corporate purposes in attracting responsible executives.
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.
Vector Products, Inc. v. Schumacher Electric Corp., S.D. Fla., 3/8/2005. Amicus Curiae filed in support of the appeal filed by Defendant Schumacher Electric Corporation of the Magistrate's Order denying in-house counsel access to documents provided to attorneys in litigation. The ACC respectfully submits if any litigators in a case have access to documents produced to the other side, that access should be available to all litigators in the case who are properly licensed and admitted, and the fact a litigator is in-house should not prevent that counsel from reviewing sensitive or protected information that is available to all other attorneys for the parties. To prevent the access to documents available to other lawyers creates an inherent and unfair disadvantage in preparing, presenting, and directing the execution of the client's strategy.
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.
This brief 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.
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.
This letter addresses ACC San Diego Chapter's concerns regarding states MJP legislation's affect on in-house counsel.
ACC letter to the North Dakota Supreme Court regarding the adoption of Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5 and 8.5, and Admission to Practice Rule 3, all relating to Multijurisdictional Practice.
Testimony presented Linda Madrid on March 17, 2004