ACC's General Counsel, Susan Hackett, was interviewed on NPR sharing her insight on the new eDiscovery rules. New rules take effect that help companies decide how many e-mails and other digital items they have to keep in case someone sues them and demands the documents be brought to court. Even small companies can generate millions of digital documents in a very short time, and systems for managing them can be expensive.
Click here to listen
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Susan Hackett on NPR
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
ACC Fellow to be Honored for Katrina Work
Reilly Morse, the ACC/Equal Justice Works Disaster Relief Fellow, will be recognized by the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law with the Edwin D. Wolf Award, for performing pro bono, or no-fee work, in public interest law.
Read More about Mr. Morse and other attorneys recognized by the Committee
If you would like to support ACC's Disaster Relief Fellowship, please contact Susan Hackett at hackett@acc.com, or Eve Runyon at runyon@acc.com. Every $75,000 ACC raises will place another Fellow on the ground where pro bono services are desperately needed. If you would like to make a contribution toward this fellowship fund, contact LeAnna Hart Gipson at Equal Justice Works at lgipson@equaljusticeworks.org.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Silicon Valley Companies Looking for a Few Good GCs
Jessie Seyfer, of The Recorder, writes about the worlds biggest tech companies and their scramble to fill leadership positions within their legal departments. Click here to read more.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Does it Matter How They Spend Their Money?
In a story covered by law.com, a New Jersey judge has ordered Merck & Co. to release records documenting how much it spent on a trial involving its Vioxx painkiller. Outside counsel for Merck disagreed with the judge's decision and stated that what defense lawyers spend has no relation to plaintiffs lawyers' expenses. But since the order was made as part of the discovery process, Merck couldn't appeal.
Merck has reserved $970 million for legal costs and spent $285 million of that last year. So, how much was spent on litigating whether Vioxx caused the victims heart attacks or the consumer fraud issue?
Read this article on law.com
Monday, October 16, 2006
ACC's Annual Meeting
The ACC Annual Meeting is less than a week away. The office is a buzz with activity, as we prepare to journey across the country to meet our members. This will be my second Annual Meeting, and I must say, I'm more than excited. It's always such a pleasure to get out of the office and meet the membership. It gives me a chance to find out what it is you're looking for from ACC Online. My ears are always open--what do you want to see more of on our site? How do you like our recent website redesign? How can we make your visit to acc.com more productive? Looking forward to seeing some old faces and meeting some new ones! See you in San Diego.
Nichole Opkins, Esq.
In the News: Tough Times for In-house Lawyers?
That's what the Wall Street Journal's Ashby Jones is reporting today on page A12. The story says that "at least seven general counsels...have left their jobs in the wake of a backdating investigation." You should be able to access this story on the WSJ's law page. (Registration may be required.)
Now, will someone remind the WSJ that counsel needs no "s" when plural? Thanks.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
2006 ABA Survey: Lawyers More Mobile but Stuck on Basics
Lawyers are always on the go. Whether it's off to a contract negotiation or running to the courtroom we are always moving. And the technology that gives us the leverage to keep on top of what's going on back in the office, no matter where we are, is priceless. But are attorneys using it to the fullest extent possible?Read Laura Ikens article on attorneys and their technology woes at law.com in her article 2006 ABA Survey: Lawyers More Mobile but Stuck on Basics
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
In the News: Heineman on Public Policy
GE's Ben Heineman, one of the in-house counsel community's most noted members, discusses why transnational corporations need to be proactive in their public policy efforts. He explains GE's approach and identifies the roles of both in-house and outside counsel.
You can see his insights on--you guessed it!--law.com today.
Monday, September 18, 2006
In the News: Pro Bono
The always reliable law.com has a very nice story about corporate legal departments' pro bono efforts, which focus specifically on programs pioneered by ACC: Corporate Pro Bono and Streetlaw. Find out what companies like Merck are doing and get inspired.
Monday, September 11, 2006
What In-house Lawyers Wish Law Firms Knew
Take a look at Bob Gans, Legal Times article, 13 Simple Steps: What In-house Lawyers Wish Law Firms Knew. He covers the high points, for sure. What else do you wish your outside counsel understood about you and your business?
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Greetings from Biloxi, Mississippi, home base for the Equal Justice Works Katrina Legal Fellow sponsored by ACC
I am Reilly Morse, a third-generation Mississippi attorney with the
Mississippi Center for Justice. MCJ is our only independent home-grown, home-owned statewide public interest lawfirm. Its focus is social and economic justice. Our headquarters is in the state capitol, Jackson. In December, 2005, MCJ opened its first branch office in Biloxi to assist with the legal needs of hurricane victims across the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
ACC’s sponsorship of my position at MCJ has assured there will be a voice speaking for the lowest-income residents in the poorest state in the nation impacted by the worst hurricane in American history. Thank you for this indispensable resource.
Traditionally, MCJ focuses on impact litigation rather than direct services. However, Hurricane Katrina destroyed offices and residences of coastal legal services centers, and so MCJ stepped in to help fill the gap. In cooperation with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and an array of volunteer lawyers from the smallest firms to national corporate law departments, MCJ manned disaster recovery centers and conducted over 20 disaster recovery workshops in impacted minority communities across the coast. We worked on FEMA benefits, SBA loans, insurance, evictions, foreclosures, contract disputes, and more. To get an idea of what we faced, take a look at MCJ’s short film, New Foundations and the Lawyers Committee’s short film, The New Homeless.
The voice for vulnerable storm victims was also heard in official chambers through my participation in the Affordable Housing Sub-Committee of the Governor’s Commission, and the Governor’s Housing Policy Council. Working with national and local partners, MCJ also presented comments to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development urging greater equity in Mississippi’s plans to use federal hurricane recovery funds and gathered thousands of supporting signatures.
MCJ played a pivotal role in the formation of an alliance of over 30 service organizations focusing on low-income and minority populations known as the Steps Coalition. “Steps” draws its inspiration from the concrete steps that alone remain after a hurricane. The Steps Alliance was highlighted at a joint Oxfam-America – NAACP Town Meeting in Gulfport on August 26, 2006, attended by the heads of Oxfam, NAACP, the Lawyers Committee, and actor/activist Danny Glover. I was a member of the local panel of experts which followed.
I contributed a section on predatory lending to “Envisioning A Better Mississippi,” the NAACP report on Hurricane Katrina. I also was acknowledged in Oxfam America’s “Forgotten Communities, Unmet Promises” report.
In the coming weeks, I hope to interest ACC members in augmenting these efforts with pro bono assistance on tax, corporate, and real estate aspects of the Hurricane Katrina recovery.
Written By:
Reilly Morse
ACC's Equal Justice Works Katrina Fellow
through the Equal Justice Works Program
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
In the News: GC's Top Law Firm Picks
Which law firm is the favorite of Fortune 250 general counsel? Which are the top firms for litigation? Why have DC firms mysteriously disappeared from the list? Are companies still going through the "convergence" process? Was going to the Fortune 500 just too much effort?
To get the answers to these questions (except the Fortune 500 one), check out the story on law.com. You can also access a chart showing which law firms companies use...if you register.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
In the News: GC Fired Over Backdating Scandal
Are GC's especially vulnerable in the current wave of backdating scandals? One reporter thinks so and points to the case of Kent Hart Roberts, GC of McAfee, Inc., fired over a stock backdating "episode." You can read the full article on law.com.
If you want to know how to be prepared when it comes to questions about backdating stock options, register for ACC's upcoming webcast on September 7.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
In the News: Going Dark to Avoid SarbOx?
New Jersey Law Journal probes whether more public companies are going private or "going dark" (deregistering their stock with the SEC) in order to avoid the onerous reporting requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley. Read all about it on law.com today.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
In the News: Let's Make a Deal!
Corporate Counsel's Sue Reisinger reports on the increase in deferred prosecution and non-prosecution deals between the DOJ and companies under investigation. Read the full story, "Trying Not to Keep Up With the Andersons" on law.com.
Bonus: ACC's Susan Hackett is quoted in the article...twice!
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
In the News: You're No SuperLawyer! (at least in New Jersey)
A New Jersey Supreme Court ethics panel ruled to prohibit New Jersey lawyers from advertising their inclusion in or participating in the selection process for two lawyer guides, "Best Lawyers in America" and "SuperLawyers." The panel believes these types of guides violate the rule of professional conduct by suggesting that one lawyer is better than another. Read the full story.
Is this a victory for the profession or an ill-conceived crusade? What do you think?
Monday, July 24, 2006
In the News: The Latest Twist in the KPMG Case
Like any good summer blockbuster, the thrills just keep on coming in the KPMG case. Previously, Judge Kaplan ruled that prosecutors had gone to too far by demanding that KPMG cut off legal fees for the 17 defendants in the case if it wished to be deemed "cooperative." Kaplan went so far as to urge the defendants to sue KPMG for said legal fees...and they did. Now, three of the defendants are seeking to suppress proffer statements they made to prosecutors, arguing that they would have never met with prosecutors had the legal fees issue not been hanging over their heads. Kaplan has yet to rule.
Read all about it on law.com today.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Backdating Scandals: What's REALLY Going On?
Media coverage of backdating scandals, newly-released research indicating widespread backdating practices in corporations, and hush-hush hints of allegations pending and charges soon to be filed, dominated the business news pages of the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and the legal media for the last few days. What's really going on here?
My conversations with CLOs on this issue indicate that while "true" backdating is a heinous practice, many of the current allegations levied by the governance ratings organizations, the SEC, and the media have swept into that category a whole bunch of practices that:
a.) aren't illegal (and indeed were tacitly condoned by auditors and the SEC)
b.) have been common practice in companies that have always prided themselves on the integrity in their compensation processes,
c.) have been openly disclosed (so there's no concern over super-secret executive shenanigans) and
d.) have CLOS and the business leaders they advise furious about being categorized as engaging in corrupt practices that inappropriately enriched company executives.
Companies that as a common practice choose a prospective or current date to grant options and then get that grant authorized by the Board's compensation committee members for approval (say, by passing a date of July 6 through telephonic approval on or before July 6), but who did not complete the paperwork to make the transaction complete for accounting purposes until later (say, July 19) are not appropriately swept into the same category as folks who decide on July 19 that they'd like to grant options dated July 6. To my (admittedly-non-securities-expert) mind, these two activities are entirely different things, and evidence entirely different mind-sets. But I'm talking to lots of people whose companies are being investigated for the former practice, as if they've engaged in some kind of secret criminal conspiracy to unjustly enrich business team members.
Clearly, one of the benchmarks emerging for companies that may have chosen dates ad hoc in the past is to consider setting dates that options will be granted for a regular schedule in the future (so that no one can claim that backdating to choose more advantageous dates was practiced).
But in the meantime, practitioner groups are forming to push back on what is being perceived as yet another attempt to criminalize non-criminal behavior, while at the same time that the SEC, investor groups, and even a special task force in San Francisco (will the State AGs be far behind?) are forming ranks to pursue possible charges against companies and execs that include a whole bunch of folks who never had a clue that their above-board and board-condoned options grant practices were going to be future classified as shady dealings. Certainly the SEC and auditors, which knew about many of the practices they now sweep into a general category of inappropriate backdating, never before suggested they had any problems with the practices. Just to cover the bases, the
SEC has supposedly asked the PCAOB to delay an examination and proposals regarding this issue for the moment. Kind of hard to know what to advise when only hindsight is 20/20, eh?
Of course there are egregious practices in the backdating scandals currently under scrutiny, but there seem to be a whole lot more folks who may be implicated (and essentially blackmailed into either expense defensive tactics or settlements) whose practices were above-board, non-criminal, and -- frankly -- widely considered just good business sense and common practice by regulators, in-house counsel, and so-called governance experts. What's your take?
Susan Hackett
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
hackett@acca.com
Monday, July 17, 2006
In the News: Ka-ching! GC Compensation Survey
Corporate Counsel magazine has pulled together all the details of the compensation packages of the top GCs. Find out who got that $4.5 million bonus we've all been dreaming of and who got no bonus at all (and dropped from 17 to 71 on the annual list). You can read an article about the survey right now, but will need to register (free) to see the full roster.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
In the News: The Latest on KPMG
In a not unexpected move, the former KPMG employees who had the coverage of their legal fees capped by the company and who earned the support of Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in uncapping said fees, have filed suit against KPMG to...you guessed it!...compel the company to advance their legal fees.
You can read the full article (as usual) on law.com.
Bonus: The story contains a list of the defendants and notes who is representing each.