A brief arguing that neither principles of agency law nor the rules authorizing attorneys to form professional corporations support a finding that a corporation engages in the unauthorized practice of law when it utilizes in-house counsel.
Swidler & Berlin, et al. v. U.S, U.S. S. Ct., 4/1/1998. This Amicus Brief argues in light of Federal Rule of Evidence 501's "reason and experience" an absolute, rather than qualified, posthumous privilege is necessary. Additionally, the court erred in applying the lax work-product standard for purely factual information to mental-impression work product, and allowed the disclosure of factual material in the lawyer's notes revealing his thoughts and legal strategies.
A motion for leave to file brief and an attached brief regarding the critical importance both to corporations engaged in interstate commerce that receive legal advice and representation from out-of-state lawyers and to the attorneys (whether in-house or outside counsel) who provide such multi-state services.
A brief arguing the ethical obligation not to sue the client belongs to all attorneys, including in-house attorneys.
"This Amicus Brief is in PDF format. You will need the <A HREF="http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html" TARGET="new">Adobe Reader </A> plug-in to view it."
A motion for leave to file an amicus brief and a brief discussing the important policy reasons why in-house counsel and all attorneys must be held to the same high ethical standards and why it is so important that their clients accurately so perceive them.
A brief alleging that in-house counsel should receive the same protection as outside counsel and the court should not make distinctions based on the employment status of an attorney.