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

Ethics for Corporate Lawyers 2017

Released on: Dec. 28, 2017
Running Time: 02:18:06
At this unique interactive program based on the video “Negotiation Ethics – Where is the Brink?” faculty will review various everyday ethical scenarios. Topics covered include:
  • Can you examine metadata in draft deal documents?
  • Are you under an obligation to correct drafting mistakes made by the other side?
  • When can you contact the opposing business people directly about deal issues?
  • What happens if you inadvertently receive relevant information?
  • Where is the line between puffery and lying?
  • Are inside and outside counsel treated differently under the rules?
  • Do advance waivers address conflicts for transactional work?
  • With a waiver, can counsel be on opposite sides of the same transaction?
  • What issues are presented if transfers to an affiliated company are involved and one  of the affiliates is in financial distress?

Lecture Topics [Total time 02:18:06]

  • Introduction [00:02:04]
    David G. Keyko
  • Ethics for Corporate Lawyers [02:16:02]
    David G. Keyko, Hon. James C. Francis IV (Ret.), Jennifer A. Paradise, James Q. Walker, Jane Wasman

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

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • New York Rules of Professional Conduct (Effective April 1, 2009, as amended through January 1, 2017, with commentary as amended through January 1, 2017)
  • The Downward Spiral: A Morality Play in Several Acts
    Ronald C. Minkoff
  • Dealing with an Ethical Dilemma
    Deborah A. Scalise
  • Deborah A. Scalise and Sarah Jo Hamilton, Ethics Update 2017
    Deborah A. Scalise
  • Ethics Resources 2017
    Deborah A. Scalise
  • Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters, 22 NYCRR § 1240.11, Diversion to a Mentoring Program (effective October 1, 2016)
    Richard M. Maltz
  • New York Judiciary Law § 90, Admission to and removal from practice by appellate division; character committees (McKinney 2017)
    Richard M. Maltz
  • In re Apple, 148 A.D.3d 217 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2d Dept. 2017)
    Richard M. Maltz
  • In re Furtzaig, 305 A.D.2d 7 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1st Dept. 2003)
    Richard M. Maltz
  • In re Saghir, 86 A.D.3d 121 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2d Dept. 2011)
    Richard M. Maltz
  • In re Galasso, 19 N.Y.3d 688 (2012)
    Richard M. Maltz
  • Pearl v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority, 156 A.D.2d 281 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1st Dept. 1989)
    Richard M. Maltz
  • Ball of Confusion: Practicing Law from Your Second Home in Another State
    Ronald C. Minkoff
  • What Is a Lawyer’s Duty to Prevent Disclosure of Confidential Information through a Cyber-Hack?
    James Q. Walker
  • Advance Conflict Waivers—An Overview
    Sarah D. McShea
  • Ethics for Corporate Lawyers: Negotiations
    David G. Keyko
  • Negotiation Ethics in Five Acts—”Where Is the Brink?” (Script)
    David G. Keyko

Presentation Material

  • Ethics for Corporate Lawyers: Negotiation Ethics in Five Acts (PowerPoint Slides)
    David G. Keyko

Chairperson(s)
David G. Keyko ~ Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Speaker(s)
Hon. James C. Francis IV (Ret.) ~ Distinguished Lecturer, CUNY School of Law
Jennifer A. Paradise ~ General Counsel, White & Case LLP
James Q. Walker ~ Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP
Jane Wasman ~ President, International and General Counsel, Acorda Therapeutics
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.

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

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand 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:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

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.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. 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

Live Programs  Live Programs

Staying Out of Trouble 2018: Hot Topics in Ethics and Avoiding Professional Discipline (New York, NY) Dec. 20, 2018
Ethics for Corporate Lawyers 2018 (New York, NY) Dec. 20, 2018
Ethics and Conflicts of Interest in Law Practice 2018 (New York, NY) Aug. 7, 2018
The Attorney-Client Privilege and Internal Investigations 2018 (New York, NY) Aug. 7, 2018
Ethics for In-House Corporate Counsel 2018 (New York, NY) Jun. 27, 2018
Ethics in Discovery 2018 (New York, NY) Jun. 27, 2018
Staying Out of Trouble: Ethical Necessities 2018 (Chicago, IL) May. 14, 2018
Ethics for Financial Industry Lawyers 2018 (New York, NY) Mar. 12, 2018
Ethics for Commercial Litigators 2018 (New York, NY) Feb. 23, 2018

On-Demand  On-Demand Programs

Ethics for the Negotiating Lawyer 2018 Jan. 29, 2018
Staying Out of Trouble 2017: Hot Topics in Ethics and Avoiding Professional Discipline Dec. 28, 2017
The Attorney-Client Privilege and Internal Investigations 2017 Aug. 10, 2017
Ethics and Conflicts of Interest in Law Practice 2017 Aug. 8, 2017
Ethics for In-House Corporate Counsel 2017 Jul. 17, 2017
Ethics for Discovery 2017 Jul. 14, 2017
Ethics for Government Lawyers 2017 Apr. 20, 2017
Ethics for Commercial Litigators 2017 Mar. 1, 2017

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Staying Out of Trouble 2018: The Intra-Firm Attorney-Client Privilege and Ethics and Technology Quiz Show  
Staying Out of Trouble: Ethical Necessities 2018  
Ethics for the Negotiating Lawyer 2018 David Sarratt, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Howard Schneider, Charles River Associates
Michael S Sackheim, Sidley Austin LLP
David Rabinowitz, Moses & Singer LLP
Karen M Griffin, New York City Law Department
C. Evan Stewart, Cohen & Gresser LLP
 
Winter Ethics 2017 David G Keyko, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Ronald C Minkoff, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC
 
Ethics in Context: August 2017 Jennifer A Paradise, White & Case LLP
Helen V Cantwell, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
 
Staying Out of Trouble: Ethical Necessities 2017 John C Koski, Dentons US LLP
 
Ethics for Financial Industry Lawyers 2017 Yasamine H Viehland, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Ethics Office
David Sarratt, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Howard Schneider, Charles River Associates
Michael S Sackheim, Sidley Austin LLP
David Rabinowitz, Moses & Singer LLP
C. Evan Stewart, Cohen & Gresser LLP
 
Ethics for the Negotiating Lawyer 2017  
Share
Email
“Fantastic overall presentation!”
2016 Webcast Attendee

“I enjoyed the interactive structure of the presentation.  It was a very thorough review of the issues.”
2016 Webcast Attendee

“The program was much more engaging and entertaining than I expected - great job!”
2016 Webcast Attendee

"I liked that the fact pattern was set up as a video rather than simply reading it.  It was creative and kept me interested in the topic."
Raneshia Smith-Duke, NBC Universal Inc.

"Seriously, the best ethics course I've ever taken."
Amy Colando, Microsoft Corp

"The program was well organized and the use of the case study very helpful in illustrating all of the ethics principles and privilege issues."
- Thomas Vandiver, Dentons US LLP


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.