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

Ethics for Government Lawyers

Recorded on: Mar. 8, 2018
Running Time: 02:07:38

*Scholarships are available to attend this program. For more information and to apply, please click here.

This interactive program will provide a unique opportunity to learn about the application of professional conduct rules to lawyers who work for the government by employing hypothetical examples.  

Lecture Topics [Total RunTime: 02:07:38]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:01:35]
    Karen Griffin, David Sarratt
  • Ethics for Government Lawyers [02:06:02]
    Karen Griffin, David Sarratt, Simon Brandler, Orelia E. Merchant

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 (January 1, 2017)
  • Basic Ethics for the Negotiating Lawyer
    David Rabinowitz
  • The New York Court of Appeals Takes the Wrong Fork in the Road on the Common Interest Privilege (Winter 2016)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • C. Evan Stewart, Daniel H. Tabak and Jonathan H. Hofer, Of Mice, Men, Migratory Lawyers, and Multijurisdictional Practice (September 10, 2014)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • “Here’s Johnny!”: Camacing the Future of the SEC’s Preemption Overreach (April 28, 2014)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers? (Summer 2016)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The Legal Profession and Conflicts: Ain’t No Mountain High Enough? (Fall 2007)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Caveat Corporate Litigator: The First Circuit Sets Back the Attorney Work Product Doctrine (Summer 2010)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Thus Spake Zarathustra (And Other Cautionary Tales for Lawyers) (Winter 2010)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Lawyers and the Border Patrol: The Challenges of Multi-Jurisdictional Practice (Summer 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 (Summer 2013)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The End of Conflicts of Interest?: Courts Warm Up to Advance Waivers (Winter 2013)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • “Positively 4th Street”: Lawyers and the “Scripting” of Witnesses (Summer 2014)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • “Pigs Get Fat, Hogs Get Slaughtered: Keeping Lawyers Out of the Slaughterhouse” (Summer 2015)
    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? (August 21, 2008)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Navigating State-Based Ethics Rules and Sarbanes-Oxley Requirements (September 21, 2015)
    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? (Winter 2014)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Exes and the Attorney-Client Privilege (Summer 2017)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The Fork in the Road: The SEC and Preemption (May 10, 2017)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Ethics and Social Media: Considerations (October 5, 2017)
    Karen M. Griffin
  • Social Media Ethics Guidelines of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association (May 11, 2017)
    David Sarratt, Karen M. Griffin
  • New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Ethics Opinion 1130: Conflicts; Town Attorney (July 12, 2017)
    Karen M. Griffin, David Sarratt
  • New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Ethics Opinion 1120: Reporting Misconduct (April 12, 2017)
    David Sarratt, Karen M. Griffin
  • New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Ethics Opinion 1119: Former partner or associate of district attorney; criminal law; conflict of interest (April 7, 2017)
    David Sarratt, Karen M. Griffin
  • New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Ethics Opinion 1115: Public defender; part-time judge; conflict of interest (February 17, 2017)
    David Sarratt, Karen M. Griffin
  • Key Professional Responsibility Issues
    Michael S. Sackheim
  • A Policy Question and Ethics Issues Under Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Rules
    Howard Schneider
  • Ethics for Transactional Attorneys: Hypothetical
    Michael S. Sackheim, Howard Schneider

Presentation Material

  • Ethics for Government Lawyers 2018 Hypotheticals
    Simon Brandler, Karen Griffin, Orelia E. Merchant, David Sarratt
Co-Chair(s)
Karen Griffin ~ Professional Responsibility & Ethics Counsel, New York City Law Department
David Sarratt ~ Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Speaker(s)
Simon Brandler ~ Senior Advisor & Special Counsel, NYS Office of the Attorney General, Personal Capacity
Orelia E. Merchant ~ Executive Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of New York, Personal Capacity
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:  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 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:  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 MP3 audio segments qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay 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:  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 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.

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 MP3 audio segments may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.

Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select MP3 audio segments 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 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.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s MP3 audio segments are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Ethics for Corporate Lawyers 2019 (New York, NY) Dec. 17, 2019
Staying Out of Trouble 2019: Hot Topics in Ethics and Avoiding Professional Discipline (New York, NY) Dec. 17, 2019
The Attorney-Client Privilege and Internal Investigations 2019 (New York, NY) Aug. 6, 2019
Ethics and Conflicts of Interest in Law Practice 2019 (New York, NY) Aug. 6, 2019
Ethics in Discovery 2019 (New York, NY) Jun. 26, 2019
Ethics for In-House Corporate Counsel 2019 (New York, NY) Jun. 26, 2019
Ethics for Financial Industry Lawyers 2019 (New York, NY) Mar. 11, 2019
Ethics for Commercial Litigators 2019 (New York, NY) Feb. 21, 2019
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. 17, 2018

On-Demand  On-Demand Programs

Ethics and Conflicts of Interest in Law Practice 2018 Aug. 14, 2018
The Attorney-Client Privilege and Internal Investigations 2018 Aug. 14, 2018
Ethics for In-House Corporate Counsel 2018 Jul. 4, 2018
Ethics in Discovery 2018 Jul. 4, 2018
Ethics for Financial Industry Lawyers 2018 Mar. 18, 2018
Ethics for Commercial Litigators 2018 Mar. 2, 2018
Ethics for the Negotiating Lawyer 2018 Jan. 29, 2018
Ethics for Corporate Lawyers 2017 Dec. 28, 2017
Staying Out of Trouble 2017: Hot Topics in Ethics and Avoiding Professional Discipline Dec. 28, 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 John C Koski, Dentons US LLP
 
PLI Ethics Programs: Spring 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
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • 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.