Unbelievably, there are still courts, regulators, legislators and commentators who discriminate against in-house counsel based on their employment status -- as if retained lawyers are somehow more ethical or less tempted to go astray! Questions of independence of judgment, the ability to properly counsel or keep confidentiality, and the merit of awarding fees to in-house lawyers, when fees are otherwise available to compensate the client for outside costs, are only some of the issues that keep popping up in the category of disparate treatment.

ACC is dedicated to pushing back against that which disadvantages in-house counsel's representational rights and wrongly punishes clients who choose to hire rather than retain the best lawyers to represent them.

Focus Documents 

Affymetrix, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., D. Del., 12/22/2004

amicus brief Download PDF 2004

The issue is not whether the documents would be produced to outside counsel, but rather if the client's counsel of choice -- an in-house litigation team -- should be able to have access to the same documents.

PLCM Group, Inc. v. David Drexler, Dearborn Insurance Co., et. al., Decision, Cal. S. Ct., 5/8/2000

amicus brief Download PDF 2000

Supreme Court of California affirms Court of Appeal decision granting recovery of attorney fees when the entity is represented by In-House Counsel. ACC had filed an amicus brief over this issue.