On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Ethics for In-House Corporate Counsel 2018

Released on: Jul. 4, 2018
Running Time: 02:04:19

Hear from experienced practitioners who will provide practical advice about a broad range of ethical issues confronting in-house counsel. This unique program will help you identify and analyze relevant ethical obligations and best practices for in-house corporate counsel.

Lecture Topics [Total time 02:04:19]

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

  •  Opening Remarks* [00:08:04]
    Carole L. Basri
  • Ethics for In-House Corporate Counsel [01:56:15]
    Carole L. Basri, Nishat S. Ruiter, Timothy Heine, Raja Chatterjee, David Boyd Booker

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, available at: http://www.nysba.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=50671
  • Ethics and In-House Counsel (July 25, 2016)
    Carole L. Basri
  • Isabel C. Franco, Ch. 2: International Attorney-Client Privilege, Practising Law Institute, International Corporate Practice: A Practitioner’s Guide to Global Success (January 2018)
    Carole L. Basri
  • Carole L. Basri and Irving Kagan, Ch. 8: The Client—Ethical Considerations, Practising Law Institute, Corporate Legal Departments (4th Edition) (May 2017)
    Carole L. Basri
  • Carole L. Basri and Irving Kagan, Ch. 9: Confidentiality of Communications, Practising Law Institute, Corporate Legal Departments (4th Edition) (May 2017) (Excerpt)
    Carole L. Basri
  • Carole L. Basri and Irving Kagan, Ch. 11: Corporate Compliance Programs, Practising Law Institute, Corporate Legal Departments (4th Edition) (October 2016) (Excerpt)
    Carole L. Basri
  • Social Media Ethics Guidelines of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association (May 11, 2017)
    Carole L. Basri
  • New York County Lawyers Association Professional Ethics Committee, Formal Opinion 749, A Lawyer’s Ethical Duty of Technological Competence with Respect to the Duty to Protect a Client’s Confidential Information from Cybersecurity Risk and Handling E-Discovery When Representing Clients in a Litigation or Government Investigation (February 21, 2017)
    Carole L. Basri
  • The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional Ethics, Formal Opinion 2016-2: Representing a Non-Party Witness at a Deposition in a Proceeding Where the Attorney Also Represents a Named Party (July 2016)
    Carole L. Basri
  • Attorney Conduct “Up the Ladder Reporting” Guidance for Legal Department Attorneys (PowerPoint slides)
    Timothy Heine
  • Ethics and Discovery
    Claudia T. Morgan, Stephen D. Brody, Philip N. Yannella
  • Social Media Ethics Guidelines of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association (May 11, 2017)
    Claudia T. Morgan, Philip N. Yannella
  • The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, Formal Opinion No. 2015-193: What Are an Attorney’s Ethical Duties in the Handling of Discovery of Electronically Stored Information?
    Claudia T. Morgan, Philip N. Yannella
  • New York County Lawyers Association Professional Ethics Committee, Formal Opinion 749, A Lawyer’s Ethical Duty of Technological Competence with Respect to the Duty to Protect a Client’s Confidential Information from Cybersecurity Risk and Handling E-Discovery When Representing Clients in a Litigation or Government Investigation (February 21, 2017)
    Claudia T. Morgan, Philip N. Yannella
  • Ethics Opinions
    Katie M. Lachter
Chairperson(s)
Carole L. Basri ~ Adjunct Professor, Fordham University School of Law; Visiting Professor, Peking University, School of Transnational Law; Visiting Professor, Pericles Law School, President, Corporate Lawyering Group LLC
Speaker(s)
David Boyd Booker ~ Managing Director & Senior Counsel, Head of Fixed Income Derivatives for the Americas, Legal Department, Crédit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank
Raja Chatterjee ~ Managing Director – Global Risk & Compliance Officer, Tishman Speyer
Timothy Heine ~ Senior Vice President, Managing Counsel, American Express
Nishat S. Ruiter ~ General Counsel, TED Conferences, LLC
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:  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

Live Programs  Live Programs

Staying Out of Trouble 2019: Hot Topics in Ethics and Avoiding Professional Discipline (New York, NY) Dec. 17, 2019
Ethics for Corporate Lawyers 2019 (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 in Discovery 2018 Jul. 4, 2018
Ethics for Financial Industry Lawyers 2018 Mar. 18, 2018
Ethics for Government Lawyers 2018 Mar. 8, 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
The Attorney-Client Privilege and Internal Investigations 2017 Aug. 10, 2017
Ethics and Conflicts of Interest in Law Practice 2017 Aug. 8, 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.