Testimony of ACCA board Vice Chair John McGuckin, Jr. executive vice president and general counsel of Union Bank of California before the final hearing of the ABA Task Force on Corporate Responsibility on November 11, 2002. McGuckin notes that the Task Force's proposed changes to Model Rules would not adequately address either 1) perception of the public or 2) the need for lawyers to play a more aggressive role in preventing and reporting illegal activities.
Written Submission of the American Corporate Counsel Association to the ABA Task Force on Corporate Responsibility
(The"Cheek Commission?), November 11, 2002.
ACCA's Statement on In-house Counsel's Appropriate Role in Ensuring Corporate Responsibility. This statement is intended to underscore ACCA members' core values as representatives of organizational clients post-Enron.
Report addressing multi-jurisdictional practice issues such as reciprocal admission and pro hac vice rules.
Guidelines for the Ethical Practice of Mediation and to prevent the unauthorized practice of law. Sample documents included: agreement to mediate and memorandum of understanding.
Proposed rule requires registration of Virginia in-house counsel not licensed in the Commonwealth, includes CLE requirements, professional responsibility exam and character and fitness application.
Supreme Court of California affirms Court of Appeal decision granting recovery of attorney fees when the entity is represented by In-House Counsel. ACC had filed an amicus brief over this issue.
A complaint alleging that a rule requiring pesticide registrants to report information concerning "unreasonable adverse effects" of their products to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exceeds EPA's statutory authority and impermissibly impinges the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.
A brief arguing that the prevailing market rate is the most reasonable, equitable, and predictable method of calculating reasonable attorney fees for in-house counsel.
PCLM Group, Inc. v. David Drexler, Brief of ACC, Cal. Ct. App., 10/1998. This brief discusses the right of corporate clients to choose counsel of their own choice to represent them. The corporate client's decision process to "make or buy" legal services is illustrative of the fact the cost of legal services rendered by in-house counsel to a corporate client are real and expenses incurred by corporations for their in-house legal services are not only significant, but are compensable by a court. Law firm costs and law department costs are not very different and in fact, they only differ in that the former bills/profits from its costs and the latter absorbs/expenses it's costs. Additionally, it is appropriate to award fees to in-house counsel by the same standard that outside counsel fee awards are compensated and equal pay for equal work is an equitable and reasonable standard. The award of a reasonable, market-price fee to a client using in-house counsel is not barratry, fee-sharing, unauthorized practice, or the inappropriate practice of law by a corporation.