On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Storming the Gatekeepers: When Compliance Officers and In-House Lawyers Are at Risk 2017

Released on: Oct. 4, 2017
Running Time: 06:20:19

In recent years, the government has sharply focused on compliance professionals and in-house counsel, the gatekeepers who are tasked with identifying corporate misconduct. If you are a gatekeeper or represent them, it is time to hear from experienced in-house and outside counsel, chief compliance officers and government officials as they discuss a variety of topics stemming from the government’s scrutiny of the function, responsibilities and conduct of gatekeepers.

You will learn:

  • Identify the inherent risks and responsibilities of gatekeepers
  • Learn about the limitations on privilege in the area of compliance
  • Tools for defending a gatekeeper under investigation
  • Hear the government’s perspective on gatekeepers’ duties
  • Takeaways from recent gatekeeper investigations

This program will be of interest to in-house counsel, compliance professionals and outside lawyers who represent them.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:20:19]

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

  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:05:37]
    Daniel Nathan
  • The Responsibilities of In-House Counsel and Compliance Personnel [01:38:44]
    Samuel J. Winer, Daniel Nathan, Elaine H. Mandelbaum, Charles V. Senatore, Karyn S.W. Polak
  • Is Everything Privileged? Limitations on Privilege in the Area of Compliance [01:33:56]
    MaryJeanette Dee, Sandra M. Hanna, Abbe R. Tiger, Robert H. Hotz, Jr., Robert M. Stern
  • Defending the Gatekeeper: When In-House Counsel and Compliance Professionals are Investigated [01:31:04]
    Lee S. Richards III, Samantha J. Leventhal, Lynn A. Neils, Hank B. Walther, Peter H. White
  • The Government’s Perspective: Duties of In-House Counsel and Compliance Professionals [01:30:58]
    Susan L. Merrill, Jessica B. Hopper, Daniel Nathan, Sheldon L. Pollock, Mark K. Schonfeld

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Samuel J. Winer, Brooke D. Clarkson, Jenlain A. Coyle, and Daniel A. Nathan, In-House: SEC Enforcement Actions Against Compliance Officers
    Samuel J. Winer, Daniel A. Nathan
  • Sandra M. Hanna, Khiran Sidhu and Lindsay B. Arrieta, Privilege Under Fire: Practical Guidance for Privilege Considerations in Internal Investigations and Government Investigations
    Sandra M. Hanna
  • A Lawyer’s Ability to Use Confidential Information to Defend Against Allegations of Misconduct: Relevant New York Ethical Rules
    James J. Benjamin, Jr.
  • MaryJeanette Dee and Sarah Aberg, Communications with Compliance—What’s Privileged and What Isn’t (July 7, 2017)
    MaryJeanette Dee
  • Defending the Gatekeeper: When In-House Counsel and Compliance Professionals Are Investigated (Including Attachments 1-5)
    Lee S. Richards
  • Financial Conduct Authority, Conduct Risk 5 Questions (July 6, 2015)
    Lee S. Richards
  • Susan L. Merrill and Nathalie Petritis, Trends in Individual Liability for Compliance Officers: What Leads the Government to Sue a Compliance Person or In-House Lawyer?
    Susan L. Merrill
  • Andrew Ceresney, Director, Division of Enforcement, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Speech, 2015 National Society of Compliance Professionals, National Conference: Keynote Address (November 4, 2015)
    Richard J. Morvillo
  • Mary Jo White, Chair, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Speech, Remarks at National Society of Compliance Professionals National Membership Meeting (October 22, 2013)
    Richard J. Morvillo

Presentation Material


  • Storming the Gatekeepers 2017 Hypothetical
Chairperson(s)
Richard J. Morvillo ~ Morvillo LLP
Speaker(s)
MaryJeanette Dee ~ Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Sandra M. Hanna ~ Bruch Hanna LLP
Jessica B. Hopper ~ Enforcement Deputy Chief, Senior Vice President, Regional Enforcement, FINRA
Robert H. Hotz, Jr. ~ Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Samantha J. Leventhal ~ Managing Director, Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Elaine H. Mandelbaum ~ Managing Director and General Counsel, Litigation and Regulatory Enforcement, Citi Institutional Clients Group
Susan L. Merrill ~ Sidley Austin LLP
Daniel Nathan ~ Morvillo LLP
Lynn A. Neils ~ Baker Botts LLP
Karyn S.W. Polak ~ Deputy General Counsel, PNC Bank, N.A.
Sheldon L. Pollock ~ Assistant Director , U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Lee S. Richards III ~ Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP
Mark K. Schonfeld ~ Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Charles V. Senatore ~ Head of Risk Oversight, Fidelity Investments – Devonshire Investors
Robert M. Stern ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Abbe R. Tiger ~ Head of Compliance-US, Computershare
Hank B. Walther ~ Jones Day
Peter H. White ~ Schulte Roth & Zabel
Samuel J. Winer ~ Foley & Lardner LLP
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:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

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 10 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.

 

Share
Email

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

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.