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

Ethics for In-House Corporate Counsel

Recorded on: Jul. 17, 2017
Running Time: 02:01:06

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 analyze relevant ethical obligations and understand best practices.

You will learn:

  • Representing the corporate entity: who is the client?
  • Crisis management, corporate compliance, and litigation management: best practices and related professional conduct obligations
  • Considerations relevant to protecting the attorney-client privilege and client confidences
  • Corporate whistleblowing and ethical rules

This program will be useful for counsel who work in-house and who advise corporate clients and employees.

Lecture Topics [Total time 02:01:06]

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


  • Introduction* [00:14:00]
    Carole L. Basri
  • Ethics for In-House Corporate Counsel [01:47:06]
    Carole L. Basri, Raja Chatterjee, David Boyd Booker, Timothy Heine, Nishat Ruiter

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
  • 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 (November 2016)
    Carole L. Basri
  • Carole L. Basri and Irving Kagan, Ch. 8: The Client—Ethical Considerations, Practising Law Institute, Corporate Legal Departments (4th Edition) (May 2016)
    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
  • New York County Lawyers Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Formal Opinion 746, Ethical Conflicts Caused by Lawyers as Whistleblowers under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act of 2010 (October 7, 2013)
    Carole L. Basri
  • New York County Lawyers Association Committee on Professional Ethics, 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 22, 2016)
    Carole L. Basri
  • Rules of the Court of Appeals for the Registration of In-House Counsel, State of New York, 22 NYCRR 522
    Carole L. Basri
  • Dynamic 3D Geosolutions LLC v. Schlumberger Limited, 2016 WL 4729505 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
    Carole L. Basri
  • Attorney Conduct “Up the Ladder Reporting” Guidance for Legal Department Attorneys (PowerPoint slides)
    Timothy Heine
  • Stephen D. Brody, Moshe G. Peters and Jillian Somers Donovan, Zealous Advocacy and the Discovery Process: Revisiting National Day Laborer After Six Years
    Stephen D. Brody
  • DC Bar Association, Ethics Opinion 371: Social Media II: Use of Social Media in Providing Legal Services (November 2016)
    Stephen D. Brody
  • New York County Lawyers Association Committee on Professional Ethics, 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)
    Stephen D. Brody
  • Jeremy R. Feinberg, Do’s and Don’ts of Ethics Research
    Katie M. Lachter
  • Anthony E. Davis and Katie M. Lachter, Lateral Attorney Movement: Pre-Departure and Recruitment, New York Law Journal, May 7, 2012
    Katie M. Lachter
  • Anthony E. Davis and Katie M. Lachter, Do’s and Don’ts of Lateral Attorney Movement: Managing the Risks, New York Law Journal, March 5, 2012
    Katie M. Lachter
  • Peter R. Jarvis and Katie M. Lachter, Civility: The Ultimate Legal Weapon?, Bloomberg Law Reports—Law Firm Management, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2011)
    Katie M. Lachter
  • The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional Ethics, Formal Opinion 2014-1: Ethical Considerations for Lawyers Contemplating Business Arrangements with Non-Legal Organizations, January 1, 2014
    Katie M. Lachter
  • The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional Ethics, Formal Opinion 2013-2: A Lawyer’s Obligation to Take Action If, After the Conclusion of a Proceeding, the Lawyer Comes to Know That Material Evidence Offered by the Lawyer, the Lawyer’s Client or a Witness Called by the Lawyer During the Proceeding Was False, May 30, 2013
    Katie M. Lachter
  • The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional Ethics, Formal Opinion 2013-1: Duties to Prospective Clients After Beauty Contests and Other Preliminary Meetings, Oct. 1, 2013
    Katie M. Lachter
  • Representing Individuals in International Investigations (September/October 2016)
    Susan E. Brune, Erin C. Dougherty
  • Recent U.K. Decision Jeopardizes U.S. Privilege Assertions for Witness Interviews (January 30, 2017)
    James J. Benjamin, Rachel E. Goldstein, Roger A. Burlingame, Steven G. Kobre
  • The RBS Rights Issue Litigation (December 8, 2016)
    James J. Benjamin
  • Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Doctrine in Internal Investigations (April 20, 2017) (PowerPoint slides)
    James J. Benjamin
  • The Intra-Firm Privilege and Representing Banks and Financial Institutions (April 20, 2017)
    James Q. Walker
  • Intra-Firm Privilege Representing Bank and Financial Institutions (PowerPoint slides) (April 20, 2017)
    James Q. Walker
  • Attorney-Client Privilege: Misunderestimated or Misunderstood? (October 20, 2014)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • ‘Exes’ and the Attorney-Client Privilege
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Judge Gets Common Interest Privilege Spot-On! (April 7, 2015)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Ohio Takes a Bite Out of the Big Apple (September 7, 2012)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Caveat Corporate Litigator: The First Circuit Sets Back the Attorney Work Product Doctrine (Summer 2010)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Good Golly Miss Molly!: The Attorney Work Product Doctrine Takes Another Hit (Winter 2012)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The D.C. Circuit: Wrong and Wronger! (Winter 2015)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • A Tale of Two Judges (Summer 2012)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Lawyers and the Border Patrol: The Challenges of Multi-Jurisdictional Practice (Summer 2011)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Navigating State-Based Ethics Rules and Sarbanes-Oxley Requirements (September 21, 2015)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Whistleblower Law: What Rights Do Ratting Lawyers Have? (March 14, 2014)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The Rivera Precedent: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You (May 2015)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Squaring the Circle: Can Bad Legal Precedent Just Be Wished Away? (Winter 2014)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • “Positively 4th Street”: Lawyers and the “Scripting” of Witnesses (Summer 2014)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Thus Spake Zarathustra (and Other Cautionary Tales for Lawyers) (Winter 2010)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Mad Dogs and Englishmen (Summer 2013)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers? (Summer 2016)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The End of Conflicts of Interest?: Courts Warm Up to Advance Waivers
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The Legal Profession and Conflicts: Ain’t No Mountain High Enough? (Fall 2007)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • “Here’s Johnny!”: Carnacing the Future of the SEC’s Preemption Overreach (April 28, 2014)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • “Pigs Get Fat, Hogs Get Slaughtered: Keeping Lawyers Out of the Slaughterhouse” (Summer 2015)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • In-House Counsel as Whistleblower: A Rat Without a Remedy? (August 21, 2008)
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Of Mice, Men, Migratory Lawyers, and Multijurisdictional Practice (September 10, 2014)
    Daniel Tabak, C. Evan Stewart, Jonathan Hofer
  • Ethics Corner: “Inadvertent Disclosure—Traps Await the Unwary”
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The New York Court of Appeals Takes the Wrong Fork in the Road on the Common Interest Privilege
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Ethical Considerations in the Representation of Multiple Clients (April 21, 2017)
    Michael J. Dell
Chairperson(s)
Carole L. Basri ~ President, Corporate Lawyering Group LLC, Adjunct Professor, Fordham Law School, Corporate Compliance Advisor and Visiting Professor, Peking University, School of Transnational Law, Visiting Professor, Pericles Law School
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 ~ SVP, Managing Counsel, American Express
Nishat 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 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 Discovery 2017 Jul. 14, 2017
Ethics for Government Lawyers 2017 Apr. 20, 2017
Ethics for Commercial Litigators 2017 Mar. 1, 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.