On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs
  Also Available in:  On-Demand MP3 Audio On-Demand MP4 - Mobile Video Seg

Ethics for Corporate Lawyers: Multijurisdictional Practice and Other Current Issues 2019

Released on: Mar. 20, 2019
Running Time: 02:09:06

Why You Should Attend


This program continues to deliver lively analysis of recent legal ethics developments and their related practice pointers for corporate lawyers.  Our expert panel will discuss common ethical pitfalls arising out of multijurisdictional practice along with related ethical issues that corporate lawyers often face.  The faculty will also address how jurisdictional distinctions regarding an ethics matter can prompt changes in the way counsel approaches that same matter, depending on where he or she practices.

What You Will Learn  


• Developments in multijurisdictional practice (including the interplay of various state ethics rules, enforcement regimes, and U.S. rules vs. international rules)
• Updates regarding confidentiality, the attorney-client privilege, and the attorney work-product doctrine (including disclosure obligations to third parties, the status of government pressure to waive, selective waiver, and inadvertent waiver) 
• Current issues in multiple representation and conflicts of interest
• Ethical concerns in witness preparation and internal investigations
• Ethical concerns when representing multinational clients
• Whistleblower remedies for corporate counsel
• Current issues involving conflicts of interest, multiple representation, and “no contact” rules
• Dangers to lawyers with clients facing parallel investigations and lawyer exposure to civil and regulatory liability

Special Features 

Earn two hours of Ethics credit

Who Should Attend


Corporate lawyers and other allied professionals interested in learning about the ethical issues corporate lawyers face should find this program helpful. 

Program Level: Basic

Intended Audience: Corporate lawyers and other allied professionals interested in learning about the ethical issues corporate lawyers face.

Prerequisites: A basic understanding of the applicable rules of professional conduct within your jurisdiction of practice.

Advanced Prep: None

Lecture Topics [Total time 02:09:06]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:03:59]
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Ethics for Corporate Lawyers: Multijurisdictional Practice and Other Current Issues [02:05:0]
    C. Evan Stewart, Jennifer Finnegan, Susannah Geltman, Stephanie N. Simon

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOOK
  • New York Rules of Professional Conduct (January 1, 2017)
  • Basic Ethics for the Negotiating Lawyer
    David Rabinowitz
  • Mom (as Always) Was Right: Don’t Talk to Strangers, NY Business Law Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Summer 2018)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Mad Dogs and Englishmen: Part Deux, NY Business Law Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Winter 2017)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The D.C. Circuit: Wrong and Wronger!, NY Business Law Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Winter 2015)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The New York Court of Appeals Takes the Wrong Fork in the Road on the Common Interest Privilege, NY Business Law Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Winter 2016)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • C. Evan Stewart, Daniel Tabak and Jonathan Hofer, Of Mice, Men, Migratory Lawyers, and Multijurisdictional Practice, American Bar Association/The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Lawyer’s Manual on Professional Conduct, Vol. 30, No. 19 (September 10, 2014)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Finder’s Keepers, Losers Weepers?, NY Business Law Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Summer 2016)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Caveat Corporate Litigator: The First Circuit Sets Back the Attorney Work Product Doctrine, NY Business Law Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Summer 2010)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Thus Spake Zarathustra (And Other Cautionary Tales for Lawyers), NY Business Law Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Winter 2010)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Lawyers and the Border Patrol: The Challenges of Multi-Jurisdictional Practice, NY Business Law Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Summer 2011)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • A Tale of Two Judges, NY Business Law Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Summer 2012)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Good Golly Miss Molly! The Attorney Work Product Doctrine Takes Another Hit, NY Business Law Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Winter 2012)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Mad Dogs and Englishmen, NY Business Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Summer 2013)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The End of Conflicts of Interest?: Courts Warm Up to Advance Waivers, NY Business Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Winter 2013)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • “Positively 4th Street”: Lawyers and the “Scripting” of Witnesses, NY Business Law Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Summer 2014)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Pigs Get Fat, Hogs Get Slaughtered: Keeping Lawyers Out of the Slaughterhouse, NY Business Law Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Summer 2015)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Ohio Takes a Bite Out of the Big Apple, New York Law Journal (September 7, 2012)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • In-House Counsel as Whistleblower: A Rat Without a Remedy?, New York Law Journal (August 21, 2008)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Navigating State-Based Ethics Rules and Sarbanes-Oxley Requirements, New York Law Journal (September 21, 2015)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Attorney-Client Privilege: Misunderestimated or Misunderstood?, New York Law Journal, Vol. 252, No. 76 (October 20, 2014)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Squaring the Circle: Can Bad Legal Precedent Just Be Wished Away?, NY Business Law Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Winter 2014)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Exes and the Attorney-Client Privilege, NY Business Law Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Summer 2017)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The Fork in the Road: The SEC and Preemption, New York Law Journal (May 10, 2017)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Ethics for Government Lawyers: Recent Developments and Select Topics
    Karen Griffin
  • Ethics and Social Media: Considerations
    Karen Griffin
  • Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Formal Opinion 2004-03: Government Lawyer Conflicts: Representing a Government Agency and Its Constituents (March 2, 2004)
    Karen Griffin, David Sarratt
  • Kentucky Bar Association, Formal Ethics Opinion, Ethics Opinion KBA E-445, Question: With the Permission of a Government Agency May an Agency Lawyer Provide Information to Members of the Public? (March 16, 2018)
    Karen Griffin, David Sarratt
  • New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 1148: Conflicts of Interest: Former Government Lawyer in Private Practice in Matters Involving Former Government Employer (April 2, 2018)
    Karen Griffin, David Sarratt
  • Ethics for Financial Industry Lawyers 2019 (October 2018)
    Michael S. Sackheim
  • A Policy Question and Ethics Issues under Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Rules
    Howard Schneider
  • Bloomberg BNA, Securities Regulation & Law Report, Derivatives Lawyers: Red Flags—See Something, Do Something (November 16, 2015)
    Michael S. Sackheim

Presentation Material

  • Ethical Considerations in Witness Preparation
    Susannah Geltman
  • Ethics for Corporate Lawyers: Multijurisdictional Practice and Other Current Issues 2019
    Stephanie N. Simon
  • Ethics for Corporate Lawyers: Multijurisdictional Practice and Other Current Issues 2019
    Jennifer Finnegan
Chairperson(s)
C. Evan Stewart ~ Cohen & Gresser LLP
Speaker(s)
Jennifer Finnegan ~ Senior Vice President and Executive Director, Commercial Risk Solutions, Professional Services , Aon
Susannah Geltman ~ Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Stephanie N. Simon ~ WilmerHale
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

PLI Ethics Programs: Winter 2019 David Sarratt, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Howard Schneider, Charles River Associates
Michael S. Sackheim, Sidley Austin LLP
David Rabinowitz, Moses & Singer LLP
Karen Griffin, New York City Law Department
C. Evan Stewart, Cohen & Gresser LLP
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2019 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2019 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.