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

Ethics for Commercial Litigators

Recorded on: Mar. 1, 2017
Running Time: 02:04:49

Attorneys involved in commercial litigation will benefit from hearing the latest legal ethics developments that are particularly relevant to this practice.  Our faculty includes experienced legal experts prepared to share useful takeaways stemming from ethical issues arising out of the commercial litigation context. 

You will hear how some recurring ethics issues continue to trip up even the most experienced attorneys and what new and novel ethics concerns are emerging, painting new gray areas for practitioners to take heed. 

You will learn:

  • Current issues relating to multiple representation and conflicts of interest
  • New developments in confidentiality, the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine (including disclosure obligations to third parties, the status of government pressure to waive, congressional legislation, selective waiver and inadvertent waiver)
  • Dangers to lawyers in the heightened regulatory environment
  • Recent developments impacting the “no-contact” rules and lawyer “dissemblance”
  • Attorney exposure to civil liability
  • Whistleblower remedies for lawyers
  • Risks to lawyers arising from parallel investigations
  • Current issues in electronic discovery

Attorneys operating in commercial litigation or otherwise are seeking a review of major legal ethics concerns impacting the practice will benefit from this program.

Lecture Topics [Total time 02:04:49]

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


  • Introduction* [00:02:30]
  • Ethics for Commercial Litigators [02:02:18]
    C. Evan Stewart, Helen V. Cantwell, Michael J. Dell, Susan J. Kohlmann

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
  • Basic Ethics for the Negotiating Lawyer
    David Rabinowitz
  • Ethics for Financial Industry Lawyers 2017
    Michael S. Sackheim
  • Derivatives Lawyers: Red Flags—See Something, Do Something
    Michael S. Sackheim
  • A Policy Question and Ethics Issues under Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Rules
    Howard Schneider
  • Ethics for Government Lawyers Notes—Select Topics (2017)
    David Sarratt
  • New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Ethics Opinion 1065: Imputed Conflicts of Interest; Part-time Prosecutor (July 10, 2015)
    David Sarratt
  • New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Ethics Opinion 1073: Conflict of interest; defense attorneys serving on a District Attorney’s conviction integrity committee (November 13, 2015)
    David Sarratt
  • New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Ethics Opinion 1074: Conflict of interest; part-time lawyers working for a Department of Social Services (November 13, 2015)
    David Sarratt
  • New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Ethics Opinion 1080: Communication with public officials (December 22, 2015)
    David Sarratt
  • New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Ethics Opinion 1098: Criminal law; prosecutor conditioning plea bargain on defendant’s waiver of ineffective assistance of counsel claims (June 10, 2016)
    David Sarratt
  • The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional Ethics Formal Opinion 2016-3: Prosecutors’ Ethical Obligations to Disclose Information Favorable to the Defense (August 29, 2016)
    David Sarratt
  • The Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas Opinion No. 649 (May 2015)
    David Sarratt
  • In re Thomas M. Tamm, 145 A.3d 1022 (D.C. August 25, 2016)
    David Sarratt
  • In re Brenda Kay Quade, 2015 WL 6872659 (Ill.Atty.Reg.Disp.Com. 2015)
    David Sarratt
  • Excerpts from United States v. Supreme Court of New Mexico, Nos. 14-2037 & 14-2049 (10th Cir. October 13, 2016)
    David Sarratt
  • Ethical Considerations in the Representation of Multiple Clients
    Michael J. Dell
  • The New York Court of Appeals Takes the Wrong Fork in the Road on the Common Interest Privilege
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Of Mice, Men, Migratory Lawyers, and Multijurisdictional Practice
    Daniel Tabak, C. Evan Stewart, Jonathan Hofer
  • “Here’s Johnny!”: Carnacing the Future of the SEC’s Preemption Overreach (April 28, 2014)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers?
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The Legal Profession and Conflicts: Ain’t No Mountain High Enough?
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Caveat Corporate Litigator: The First Circuit Sets Back the Attorney Work Product Doctrine
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Thus Spake Zarathustra (And Other Cautionary Tales for Lawyers) (January 2011)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Lawyers and the Border Patrol: The Challenges of Multi-Jurisdictional Practice (August 2011)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • A Tale of Two Judges (Summer 2012)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Good Golly Miss Molly!: The Attorney Work Product Doctrine Takes Another Hit (Winter 2012)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Mad Dogs and Englishmen (2013)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The End of Conflicts of Interest?: Courts Warm Up to Advance Waivers
    C. Evan Stewart
  • “Positively 4th Street”: Lawyers and the “Scripting” of Witnesses
    C. Evan Stewart
  • “Pigs Get Fat, Hogs Get Slaughtered: Keeping Lawyers Out of the Slaughterhouse”
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Ohio Takes a Bite Out of the Big Apple (September 7, 2012)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • In-House Counsel as Whistleblower: A Rat Without a Remedy?
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Navigating State-Based Ethics Rules and Sarbanes-Oxley Requirements
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Attorney-Client Privilege: Misunderestimated or Misunderstood? (October 20, 2014)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Squaring the Circle: Can Bad Legal Precedent Just Be Wished Away?
    C. Evan Stewart

Presentation Material


  • Ethical Limits in Witness Preparation
    Susan J. Kohlmann
Chairperson(s)
C. Evan Stewart ~ Cohen & Gresser LLP
Speaker(s)
Helen V. Cantwell ~ Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Michael J. Dell ~ Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Susan J. Kohlmann ~ Jenner & Block 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 MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12credits 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 MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments do not qualify for credit.

Iowa:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4credits 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 MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via MP3 audio segments.

North Carolina:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments.

Wyoming:  PLI’s MP3 audio segments qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6credits of self-study per reporting period.

CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s MP3 audio segments are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s MP3 audio segments can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s MP3 audio segments may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits on MP3 audio segments vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s MP3 audio segments may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments 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 MP3 audio segments are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s MP3 audio segments are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s MP3 audio segments may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Ethics for Corporate Lawyers 2018 (New York, NY) Dec. 20, 2018
Staying Out of Trouble 2018: Hot Topics in Ethics and Avoiding Professional Discipline (New York, NY) Dec. 20, 2018
The Attorney-Client Privilege and Internal Investigations 2018 (New York, NY) Aug. 7, 2018
Ethics and Conflicts of Interest in Law Practice 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
Ethics for the Negotiating Lawyer 2018 (New York, NY) Jan. 22, 2018
Staying Out of Trouble 2017: Hot Topics in Ethics and Avoiding Professional Discipline (New York, NY) Dec. 21, 2017
Ethics for Corporate Lawyers 2017 (New York, NY) Dec. 21, 2017

On-Demand  On-Demand Programs

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 Financial Industry Lawyers 2017 Feb. 22, 2017
Ethics for the Negotiating Lawyer 2017 Jan. 24, 2017
Ethics for Corporate Lawyers 2016 Jan. 3, 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  
Winter Ethics 2017  
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

  • 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.