BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack
BarbriPdBannerMessage

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

    Intermediate

  • work Practice Area

    Corporate Law

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Tuesday, November 12, 2024

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

  • An excellent opportunity to earn Ethics CLE credits. Note: BARBRI cannot guarantee that this course will be approved for ethics credits in all states. To confirm, please contact our CLE department at pdservice@barbri.com.


  • Live Online


    On Demand

$297.00

This course is $0 with these passes:

CLE
ALL

This CLE course will provide in-house counsel with guidance on best practices for compliance with ethical rules and how the decisions in recent ethics cases have attempted to clarify the obligations as both an employee of and adviser to the business, which serves as the client.

Faculty

Jack M. Tanner
Fairfield and Woods P.C.
Fairfield and Woods, PC

Mr. Tanner's experience includes handling a decade-long receivership for Indian Motorcycle involving dozens of parties throughout the United States. He has also represented receivers involving a real estate developer in a dispute over a private golf course and a ranching business in a dispute with one of its lenders. Mr. Tanner’s work at times entails working alongside regulatory agencies. As one example, he worked with the Attorney General of Colorado’s Office of Consumer Fraud to save a no-kill animal shelter on the brink of financial collapse.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

Some in-house lawyers don't fully grasp how legal ethics rules apply to them. The rules do not distinguish between in-house and other attorneys in most circumstances, and case law supports that an in-house lawyer is subject to the requirements of Rule 1.8, especially in the area of compensation-created conflicts.

Attorneys serving as in-house counsel are also required to address conflicts of interest that are both "directly adverse" as defined under Rule 1.7(a)(1) or a "material limitation" as defined under Rule 1.7(a)(2). In-house counsel must examine the legal ethics concerns when provided payment via stock in its client (Rule 1.8) and when imputed disqualification applies to a corporation's legal department (Rule 1.10).

Corporate counsel serving in-house must determine what it means to adhere to confidentiality (Rule 1.6) and privilege restrictions under the rules and to whom in the company that privilege is owed (Rule 1.13).

Additionally, this presentation will cover dealing with the represented opposing party (Rule 4.2), the unrepresented party (Rule 4.3), issues related to supervisory duties and covenants not to compete (Series 5 Rules), and misconduct (Series 8 Rules).

Listen as our authoritative speaker discusses the complex interplay between the ethical rules and requirements of in-house counsel to serve the client and reviews current case law interpreting these rules to outline best practices for lawyers to provide zealous representation while complying with the ethical requirements.

Outline

  1. In-house counsel and legal ethics
  2. Business transactions: Rule 1.8
  3. Conflict of interest
    1. Directly adverse: Rule 1.7(a)(1)
    2. Material limitation: Rule 1.7(a)(2)
    3. Former clients: Rule 1.9
  4. Confidentiality: Rule 1.6
  5. Imputed disqualification: Rule 1.10
  6. Representation: Rule 4.2
  7. Confidentiality walls: Rule 1.11
  8. The client is the corporation: Rule 1.13
  9. Cases
  10. Best practices

Benefits

The panelist will review these and other relevant issues:

  • What are the most serious legal ethics issues facing in-house attorneys?
  • How does in-house counsel determine who within the organization is the client and entitled to the privilege?
  • How best can in-house counsel avoid directly adverse or materially limited conflicts of interest?
  • How has case law informed the interpretation of legal ethics restrictions on in-house counsel?