Resource Library

Comment Letter in response to Hong Kong's Foreign Lawyers Registration Rules (“FLRR”) Amendments

12.21.17 CLO Sign-on to California Bar

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in in Bisaillon v. Concordia University is a welcome reaffirmation of two principles. The first is that the procedural remedy has not changed the substantive law. Thus, if no individual action lies, no collective action lies either. The second principle is that the class representative must have a sufficient personal interest to sustain an action. This paper will examine each of these principles in light of examples drawn from Quebec case law.

Product Liability Advisory Council, PLAC, amicus brief, Textron v. US, 1/10

CPBO CLO Letter to the CA Bar 12.04.17

Copy of the memo from 2006 covering the Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations

A brief dealing with whether Alabama would honor the attorney client privilege for a lawyer giving advice as in-house counsel.

A final order determining the revocation of a Conditional Leniency Agreement to have been fundamentally unfair.

A Third Circuit opinion concerning the proper operation of a corporate family's centralized in-house legal department, and delving into a variety of concepts related to the co-client (or joint-client) privilege, its exceptions, its scope, and a lawyer's ethical obligation. The Court explores the co-client (or joint-client) privilege, which applies when multiple clients hire the same counsel to represent them on a matter of common interest, and the community-of-interest (or common-interest) privilege, which comes into play when clients with separate attorneys share otherwise privileged information in order to coordinate their legal activities, as well as the adverse-litigation exception.

Letter from ACC to Supreme Court of Iowa concerning Iowa's proposed changes to Iowa's rule for registration of in-house counsel.