The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the ABA’s Upcoming Spring 2012 CLE National Institutes:
Learn and network at these in-person,full-day or multi-day seminars held live in various locations across the country that draw lawyers from across the nation.
Recently The National Law Review published an article from Risk Management Magazine a publication of the Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS) regarding Search Warrants in the Office:
When armed government agents enter your office, seize your computers and talk to your employees, the business day has gotten off to a rough start. It only gets worse when the news shows video of agents in raid jackets carrying your eye-catching, focus group-tested logo. As the days go on, you are busy reassuring customers, vendors and employees that despite early reports and comments made by the government and your competitors, it is all going to be fine and you are going to get back to business as usual.
Presented with this hypothetical situation, many adopt a similar response: it won’t happen to me. But any business that operates in a heavily regulated area or partners with any federal agency needs to appreciate that government inquiries are simply part of operating in that space. The FBI is not the only investigative agency; it is just as likely that the Environmental Protection Agency or the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General will be at the front desk with a warrant in hand and a team ready to cart away the infrastructure and knowledge of your business. Will you be ready?
Good planning as part of a regular annual review can help settle nerves, avoid costly mistakes, and put you in the best defensive position should that fateful day come when the feds show up at your door. Follow this five-part plan and you will be much better off.
Just as the agents did the morning before the search, you need to assemble your response team. The government has specialized people with individual roles and you need to have the same type of team. Some people on your team are there because you want them there. Others make the team because they sit at the reception desk or close to the front door. Either way, they are now on the same team.
The point person on the team has to be the in-house counsel. The agent may not let the receptionist place a series of calls, but the receptionist should be permitted to call the in-house counsel to notify her of the situation. From that point on, the command center shifts from the front desk to counsel’s desk.
The next call should be made from the company’s general counsel to outside criminal counsel. A general litigation or M&A background may be well suited for the company’s general needs, but on this day, the needs are quite different. Outside criminal counsel needs to begin the dialogue with the agent and the prosecutor, and should send someone to the scene if possible.
The response team should also include the heads of IT, security and communications. The IT officer must make sure that, as the search is conducted, intrusion into the system can be minimized so that the business may continue operation. If the IT officer is not permitted to assist with the search, it is critical that he observes all actions taken by the government related to any IT matters. This observation may be valuable at some point in the future if computer records are compromised or lost. This is just as important for information that may tend to show some violation of the law as it is for information that may support defense or a claim of actual innocence. The Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section of the Criminal Division has produced a manual for the search and seizure of computer records and an expert can help evaluate law enforcement’s compliance with its own approved procedures.
If your company is a manufacturer or scientific production company where the question at issue may be the quality, characteristics or integrity of a product, it is important that you demand an equal sample from the same source and under the same conditions as those taken by the seizing agents. This is important so that your own experts can review a similar sample for your own testing in defense. If this is not possible given the type of product seized, your outside counsel will work with prosecutors and agents to assert your rights to preserve evidence for future testing. Just as the IT expert can be a helpful observer, a technical expert who observes the government sampling can also provide valuable insight into issues related to the sampling that may make a world of difference at some time in the future.
The communications expert is the final member of the team, but no less significant. She can be an important point of contact for media inquiries that will inevitably follow. It is vital to be able to communicate to your customers that you are still performing your daily support and that, as you address this matter, you will never take your eye off the customer’s needs and deadlines. With a disciplined response, many companies will survive a search warrant and government investigation. This process will help ensure that your customers are there for you when you get through this difficult time.
Depending on the size of your company, all of the response team roles may be performed by one or two people. Think of the function of the tasks that need to be accomplished instead of job titles alone. The other factor that you must consider at the outset is what role will these people have in the case going forward. Try and identify people who can perform these tasks but will be outside the case itself. If you know that the company lab has been under investigation, the lab director may be a target of the investigation. If that is the case, you do not want to have that employee serving as your only witness observing the search. Instead, an ideal observer might be the outside counsel’s investigator.
An important part of this response is that you have a pre-established plan that can be taught and disseminated instantaneously. The first rule of any plan is to not make matters worse. In this case that means, “Let’s not have anyone arrested for obstruction.” If the search team has a signed search warrant for your address, they have a lawful right to make entry.
Challenging the search warrant is for another day and both state and federal laws prohibit interfering with the execution of a search warrant. This is the time to politely object to the search and document what is happening. With a copy of the search warrant in hand, outside legal counsel may be able to challenge the scope of the search, but that is not an area where the novice should dabble.
While your specialized team members perform their tasks, the company is generally at a standstill while the search continues. Let your team members work and have the rest of your employees go home. You are shut down for the time being just as you would be any other time your business is closed. You do not want to allow employees to wander the halls and interact with agents. Off-hand comments that make it into a law enforcement report may distort the facts and be difficult to explain later.
Make sure that company employees understand what is happening and what their rights are in this situation. It is important to avoid interfering with the actual lawful execution of a search warrant; it is also unlawful to tell your employees to not speak to the agents. If they know they have a right to meet with a company-retained counsel of their own and have a right to remain silent at this point, it may go a long way in calming nerves.
This is not a difficult matter to explain, but it is critical: if there are documents that are covered by the attorney/client privilege or any other similar privilege, it is critical that you assert that privilege. One reason for the receptionist to be allowed to call company counsel is that there are materials that are covered by the privilege.
It is critical to make privilege claims at this juncture so that the agents are aware of the assertion and that they formally recognize it. This may simply mean that they put those documents in a different box for review by a team subject to judicial review at a time in the near future or it may mean that the team will review the materials for immediate decisions to be made on scene. Whatever procedure the agents have established can be reviewed later, but if you do not assert privilege now, it changes the options available to you as the proceedings go forward
Given the concerns of civil liability, it is not uncommon for agents to make a video recording of their entry and departure from the scene. Their goal is to document any damage that may have been caused by the lawful execution of the warrant. The agents also want to be able to document their professional execution of the warrant in the event that claims are raised at a later point. But that tape is going to stay in their custody and not be available for your team to review as you prepare the defense.
A video record of the search may provide a key piece of support to the defense that could not possibly be understood on the day of the search. However, this process must be handled in a very unassuming manner and with a clear understanding by the agents that you are doing it, and that, in the event there are undercover officers who are masked, that you will make no effort to record them. In some states, recording voice without consent of all parties is a felony, so this is a matter that you must review with outside counsel when you are developing your procedures for search warrant response. Again, you do not want to do anything to make your situation worse.
Just as the agents are trying to learn about your operations, they will be giving you valuable information about their own operations and the focus of their investigation. Your first tasks are to determine who is in charge, document the names of the agents in attendance and note all the agencies involved in the search. This is information that you can gather directly by politely asking for the names of the agents and observing the insignia of the agents’ uniforms or badges around their necks.
The other opportunity available to you in this unique situation is the opportunity to listen to the language the agents use, the apparent hierarchy of the agents, and the small bits of casual conversation that may give you valuable insight into the goals of the search. As the day wears on, the agents will feel more comfortable around your response team and they will talk more freely. This is not to suggest that your team should attempt to interrogate the agents, however, because that will open a two-way dialogue that may lead to statements that are difficult to explain or put in context. The suggestion is simply that you serve as an active listener.
Throughout the day, the agents are going to be forming opinions about your company and your employees. Use this time to make a good impression about your company. A professional, disciplined response in a time of crisis sends a very different message than the one sent by yelling obstructionists. Even though the agents have quite a bit of information about you as their target, it may have all been gathered from third parties. This may be your opportunity to impress them and to help them question the veracity of your accusers. Remember that there will be meetings about your company, your executives and their futures, and the only people in those meetings will be the agents and the prosecutors. You want their memories of this day to weigh in your favor.
Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2012 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc.
Posted this week at the National Law Review by Laura Broughton Russell and David L. Woodard of Poyner Spruill LLP – Important things for Employers to Consider about Litigation Holds:
Does your company have an established procedure for issuing timely litigation holds? Recent court decisions make it clear that employers have a duty to preserve electronically stored information and paper documents they know or should know would be relevant to a current or threatened legal action. The consequences for failing to do so can be severe. Events which trigger an employer’s duty to preserve information/documents include, but are not limited to, the following:
A litigation hold notice is best made in writing, It should instruct recipients to preserve and not destroy (or overwrite) electronically stored information and paper documents that are relevant to current or threatened litigation.
Although the litigation hold notice must be tailored to the facts of each particular situation, at a minimum, it should include the following:
The hold notice should be issued to all employees reasonably likely to have information relevant to a claim – the “key players” in the matter. There could also be instances in which outside vendors would also need to be issued a hold notice.
The employer’s IT department should help implement litigation holds, particularly with regard to documents housed or stored in e-mail accounts, or on computers, cell phones PDAs, or on flash drives, as well as with regard to taking control of backup tapes and stopping any automatic overwriting of electronic data.
Finally, employers should enforce litigation holds and, if a violation of the hold is discovered, take prompt action to remedy the violation if possible. Steps also should be taken to ensure no further violations occur, such as taking disciplinary action up to termination.
Litigation hold notices must be tailored to the facts of each case and should be reviewed by counsel knowledgeable in this area. If you have a question about litigation hold practices, Poyner Spruill attorneys are experienced in minimizing legal risks through the effective use of litigation holds and are available to assist employers with any of their needs.
© 2011 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.
This week’s Business of Law Guest Blogger at the National Law Review is Marcie L. Borgal Shunk of BTI Consulting Group. 
I recently had the pleasure of hearing Marcie speak at Dechert’s offices in Philadelphia at a Delaware Valley Law Firm Marketing Group event – and she ‘put a lot of meat on the bones’ concerning what differentiates law firms in the eyes of inside counsel and what forces drive business to one law firm or one lawyer over another. The following is a very brief post by Marcie on what will be the premium rate legal work in 2011 and why legal consumers are willing to pay top dollar for some legal services and not others:
Gateway Practices are a law firm’s exclusive invitation into an elite club. They not only provide intimate insights into a client’s most sensitive, high-value needs, but also offer priority access to new business opportunities in other areas (such as high-rate, high-growth opportunities). Gateway Practices are, in essence, the equivalent of a hidden shortcut to the king’s treasures.
BTI Premium Practices Forecast 2011, based on input from more than 250 corporate counsel, predicts there are 4 Gateway Practices for 2011. These are:
Opportunities in Gateway Practices, however, are not abundantly available. In terms of market size, they are smaller than most other practice areas. Fewer companies have existing matters—for example, just 24.2% of companies have an active bet-the-company litigation at any given time—and the growth prospects for Gateway Practices, most of which are negative, mean competition is intense.
The only way to win new business in a shrinking practice area is to (1) take work from a competitor, or (2) be first in line for new opportunities.
Three best practices to position your firm to capture—and keep—this high-powered, top-rate work are:
©2011 The BTI Consulting Group Wellesley, MA
Recent featured blogger at the National Law Review – Ben M. Schorr of Roland Schorr & Tower – provides some great insights into common mistakes made by lawfirms when upgrading technology. 
As an information services professional I’ve spent the past two decades helping law firms with their technology. Over that time I’ve come to identify 6 major mistakes that they tend to make when they install or upgrade new technology.
It’s important before you even consider upgrading your technology to ask this question: What problem are we solving? Too many firms forget what business they’re in and run around installing fancy new systems that don’t address any specific needs. Sometimes they’re talked into it by vendors or consultants; sometimes it’s the brainchild of a computer-savvy associate or staff member. Far too often the result is a lot of money spent for new systems and no increase in productivity. If you don’t have a goal, you’ll never reach it. Back home in Indiana folks say “If you don’t know where you’re going, pull over and stop ’cause you’re there.” This is rarely truer than in technology where you are constantly bombarded with possible routes – in the form of cool toys – but unless you have a destination it makes no sense to even start the car.
Start by identifying the problem. Write it down. Write down the proposed answers. Review the problem (and proposed solutions) with the users and with your information services people (or consultants). Once you have a clearly defined (and agreed upon) problem and solution, set a timetable. Make it realistic. This can be one of the hardest parts of this step because you don’t want to rush things and end up with a hastily implemented, and poorly constructed, solution. But at the same time you can’t drag your feet too much or the technology will change right out from under you and you may find that your preferred solution has been discontinued in favor of a new and improved (read that “more sophisticated and expensive”) solution.
Too many firms get a great idea for a new technology, throw the switch and roll it out to their users without even much warning to the users that it’s going to happen. As a result there is confusion, resentment, fear and a LOSS of productivity.
Don’t just impose change from the top down or you’ll end up with users who resent and are intimidated by the new technology. Ask them what they need. Ask how they will use it. Have them compose a “wish list”. Observe their procedures. You’ll find that the users will accept the new systems much faster and easier if they have some input into its selection/creation. If you’re in a large firm consider putting together a users group of various staff members. Try to include at least two members of each category (partners, associates, paralegals, support staff, accounting, etc.) and don’t just pick the ones who know a lot about technology. Oftentimes the most valuable input will come from that partner or secretary who is awkward with the computers. Have them meet each month and ask them to talk about how the technology is (or isn’t) working for them. Have them suggest improvements. It’s important that you listen to their input and let you know that you value their contributions.
I often see firms that buy a solution they don’t understand. What is it? How does it work? Why do we need this again? Many times they see a flashy ad or get a presentation from a salesman and sign the papers in the excitement of the moment. They don’t clearly understand the problem or how this solution solves it.
Do your research. Visit the Internet sites for the products you’re interested in. Visit the sites of some of their competitors. Read the trade magazines and try to keep a handle on what’s happening in the industry. Talk to the users (see #2) and vendors. Attend demos and seminars. You’ll probably have to start learning about the technology at least 3-4 months before you plan to upgrade or the hill will be too steep to climb. If you can’t (or don’t want to) do the research yourself, find a consultant that you feel comfortable with. Get recommendations from other firms in your area of people they’ve enjoyed working with. Ideally the consultant should be familiar with the solutions you’re interested in, but shouldn’t sell those solutions themselves (that way he has no financial interest in selling you something you don’t need). Never hire a consultant that you don’t trust completely. Your consultant should be able to explain the basics of the relevant technology to you in language you can understand and, most importantly, should be able to clearly explain the expected benefits to you.
At one firm I worked for, I discovered that they had an entire floor of the building wired for network cabling but didn’t have a map or any other documentation about the cabling. All they had was plugs in the walls and loose wires in the computer closet. As you can imagine troubleshooting cabling problems became quite an adventure. It’s far too common to ask what kind of hardware is in use and have firms not know for sure. Documentation failures go well beyond cabling – system configurations, numbers of licenses, software in use…oftentimes goes unrecorded and when it’s time to troubleshoot or upgrade there is not enough information available to make good decisions or accurately foresee potential problems.
The solution is easy, but can be tedious. Insist upon complete documentation from your vendors. Maps of cabling. Labels on everything. When you deploy new equipment keep a file that indicates serial numbers and specifications (RAM, hard drive, processor, operating system, etc.). Often you can get that information from the invoice you received for the machine. Keep a list of what software you have in use, how many licenses you own, and what versions you’re running. Document the date that the system or application was deployed and from where it was purchased. This documentation can make troubleshooting MUCH easier down the road.
This is a VERY common error. It never fails to surprise me when I see a firm that will spend $50,000 on computer equipment but won’t spend $500 to train the users.
The most important part of your system is the user – upgrade them! Would you fly an airline that advertises that “All of our pilots have driver’s licenses and we have a copy of “Big Planes for Dummies” in every cockpit!” I doubt it…yet many of you are flying your firms with crucial personnel who haven’t had even 20 minutes worth of training in the products that you depend upon to get your work done. Even long after the installation training can be productive. You may think that your assistant knows the ins & outs of your word processor, but what if a 2-hour class could teach him or her new tricks or secrets to get things done faster? If these new tricks saved them just 12 minutes a day that would be an entire HOUR each week that they’d gain. In a month they’d have recouped all of the time invested in the class, twice over. This goes for executives as well, by the way…
Consider bringing in an outside trainer (or even an inside resource) to do a 1-hour lunchtime training in your conference room. Try producing an internal e-newsletter with tips and tricks for the products you use (ProLaw, Word, Excel, WordPerfect or whatever). Encourage your users to have interest and discussions about technology.
Consider creating a “Trick of the Week” award where the person in your firm who submits the best new trick or tip for using your systems wins some prize – maybe a prime parking space in your lot for the week, an extra-long lunch break on Friday or a box of chocolates.
This comes back to talking to your users. If you don’t look out the window how do you know if you reached your destination? Don’t find out 6 months later that the staff hates the new software or that the new printers don’t work properly.
After the upgrade is in place you need to contact your users and ask them if they’re happy. Try to be there when they first use it to get their initial reaction. Check in with them again the following day. Check in again the next week…and again weekly or bi-weekly for the next month or two. Look back at your written “goal” from #1 and see if you’ve solved your problem. If you didn’t, figure out why and make adjustments. Users will often forgive you if you find and fix problems quickly they often won’t forgive you if you give them a “solution” that doesn’t work and then leave them to deal with it on their own. Many times you’ll find that the problems are really “pilot error” and can be corrected with more (or better) training. Sometimes the problems will be equipment or software problems and finding them in the first days or weeks can mean the difference between getting your vendor to replace the inadequate product with something more suitable and getting stuck with it for the long term.
Preventing these mistakes takes a little effort but it’s not expensive. What’s expensive is making these mistakes and ending up with a system that you paid considerable money for and that leaves your users frustrated and your productivity down.
Copyright ©2011 Ronald Schorr
The National Law Review is a proud Media Sponsor of the 4th Annual SOX/MAR for Insurance Conference April 14 -15 in Boston, MA 
This fourth annual conference comes at a critical time for re/insurance companies. Organizations will need to file for the first time their audited statutory statements under MAR in June 2011.
This event will bring together top-level executives to discuss the challenges and requirements when it comes to NAIC compliance for the re/insurance industry. It will examine SOX and MAR strategies that re/insurance companies can implement to create consistent controls and documentation within their organization. The conference will also include a thorough examination of up-and-coming technological advances that are available to increase efficiency.
By engaging with their peers on these and other critical topics, attendees will leave the conference with a clear understanding of how to approach SOX and MAR to increase performance and effectiveness while decreasing cost and time.
Inside Counsel is inviting you to help them shine the spotlight on law firms and law departments that have achieved demonstrable results related to increasing opportunities for the empowerment of women in law by submitting a nomination for the 2011 Transformative Leadership Awards. The Awards honor women general counsel and law firm partners who have demonstrated a commitment to advancing the empowerment of women in corporate law. 
If your firm or legal department has made momentous progress in elevating women to leadership positions, developed significant paths of advancement for women, or has a considerable number of women on key executive, compensation or equity partnership committees, then click here to nominate them for an award.
InsideCounsel magazine’s Editor-In-Chief, Cathleen Flahardy, in conjunction with Allstate Insurance Company’s SVP, General Counsel & Chief Legal Officer, Michele Coleman Mayes, will again co-chair the National Awards Committee to select the 2011 winners.
In 2011, seven total awards are will be presented: three awards for in-house counsel, three awards for law firms and one shared award for both law firm and in-house counsel.
The National Law Review would like to spread the word about an upcoming event presented by NAWL (The National Association of Women Lawyers) .November 4-5, 2010 • Westin New York at Times Square
NAWL’s Sixth Annual General Counsel Institute, is targeted to women general counsel and senior in-house counsel who want to build top-tier professional and management skills to improvetheir interaction with C-suite executives and the functioning of their legal departments. 
The Institute provides a unique opportunity for women corporate counsel, in a supportive and interactive environment, to learn from leading experts and experienced legal colleaguesabout the pressure points and measurements of success for general counsel.
Senior corporate counsel of public, private, large and small companies, non-profits, government, and educational institutions.
Registration is limited to in-house counsel. Scholarships are available; see “Upcoming Events” at www.nawl.org for a full conference schedule and more details.
Contact: Jonathan Becks, Program Coordinator, NAWL: 312.988.6186, becksj@nawl.org
