-
ACC Position:
In April, ACC worked with the Pro Bono Institute and the Corporate Advisory Committee of the National Legal Aid and Defenders Association to organize a letter from general counsel supporting funding for Legal Services Corporation. The letter gathered 251 general … Continue reading
Role and Status
Issue: Role and Status
Significance: In-house counsel are full members of the legal profession, and ACC fights all efforts to treat in-house counsel differently than all other lawyers.
Description: Historically, around the world, regulators and bar committees have often treated in-house lawyers as second-class citizens. They have justified this bias by falsely claiming that in-house lawyers cannot say “no” to their clients and, thus, lack independence. This stereotype is false. In fact, ACC formed, in part, to fight these perceptions. In-house lawyers are just as smart, sophisticated, experienced, hard-working and ethical as other lawyers. Efforts to draw lines between in-house counsel and other lawyers make no sense. Often, they mask protectionism. They harm clients. And ultimately, they hurt the profession by making it more difficult for organizations to obtain the legal counseling they need.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What sorts of bias exists against in-house counsel?
A: Quite a few — even today. In the United States, some jurisdictions still require in-house lawyers to pay client protection fees that their employers will never benefit from. Judges and regulators often don’t understand the job of in-house counsel and, therefore, have unrealistic expectations about what they can do. For instance, one federal court recently indicated that in-house counsel must sit in on every trial involving their company, which is simply not feasible for many legal departments.
Q: How do other countries around the world treat in-house counsel?
A: Often, even worse than in the United States. In the European Union, the courts have held that no privilege applies between in-house counsel and their clients in certain competition matters. In France, in-house lawyers must step down from the bar in order to work in-house. And many countries around the world simply do not recognize that in-house lawyers are full members of the legal profession.
Role and Status
ACC Submits Comments to Ministry of Justice in Spain
-
ACC Position:
In March, ACC submitted comments to the Ministry of Justice in Spain regarding public consultation on its initiative to draft a bill proposal of an Organic Law on the Right of Defense. ACC held that the bill should protect the … Continue reading
ACC Urges UK Financial Reporting Council to Recognize General Counsel Influence in Guidance on Board Effectiveness
-
ACC Position:
In March, ACC submitted comments to the United Kingdom Financial Reporting Council (FRC) on revisions to the UK Corporate Governance Code and Guidance on Board Effectiveness, urging the FRC to incorporate a recommendation on the role of the legal function … Continue reading
ACC Files Amicus with U.S. Supreme Court to Oppose Dilution of State Ethics Rule Applied to Federal Prosecutors
ACC urges the U.S. Supreme Court to grant the petition to review a Tenth Circuit ruling that a New Mexico professional conduct rule does not apply to federal prosecutors who want to subpoena lawyers to testify about clients before grand … Continue reading
ACC Files Amicus Supporting Privilege When GC Functions as Both Lawyer and Negotiator
-
ACC Position:
ACC joined the US Chamber of Commerce in an amicus brief filed June 2, arguing against a “new and aggressive theory of attorney-client privilege” advanced by the FTC that would undermine the ability of in-house attorneys to freely communicate legal … Continue reading
ACC Submits Comments Supporting Amended Discovery Rules in Vermont
-
ACC Position:
On February 21, ACC, in conjunction with its Northeast Chapter, submitted comments to the Vermont Supreme Court in support of proposed amendments to Rules 1, 26, 34(b), 37(f) and 55(c) of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure, which would further … Continue reading
ACC Files Comments Supporting the State Bar of California’s Proposed Rule 1.7
-
ACC Position:
On September 26, ACC and its California chapters sent a letter in response to proposed amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. ACC supports the Bar’s continued practice of limiting the enforceability of broad … Continue reading
FILING UPDATE: ACC Prevails in Case Involving a Novel Application of Rules of Professional Conduct to In-house Counsel Compensation
- Issue: Whether in-house counsel are subject to the rules of professional conduct on reasonable fee arrangements, conflicts of interest and duty of loyalty when negotiating compensation packages with their employers.
- Court: Court of Appeals of the State of Washington
- Date of Filing: 05/09/2016
-
ACC Position:On May 9, 2016, ACC and its Washington Chapter prevailed in a case in the Washington Court of Appeals involving one of the most bizarre application of the rules of professional conduct to in-house counsel that ACC Advocacy has ever … Continue reading
ACC Files Amicus In Suit Involving Bizarre Application of Rules of Professional Conduct to In-house Counsel Compensation Dispute
- Issue: Whether in-house counsel are subject to the rules of professional conduct on reasonable fee arrangements, conflicts of interest and duty of loyalty when negotiating compensation packages with their employers.
- Court: Court of Appeals of the State of Washington
- Date of Filing: 01/27/2016
-
ACC Position:On January 27, 2016, the ACC and its Washington Chapter filed an Amicus brief in the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington protesting what may be the most bizarre application of the rules of professional conduct to in-house … Continue reading
 |
