Search Site

Ethical Challenges Lawyers Face Under Sarbanes-Oxley

Deciding to report internal misconduct can be difficult for any employee or officer of an organization. For members of the legal profession, however, the decision can easily conflict with their ethical obligations. Lawyers working as in-house counsel have long struggled with the apparent contradictions between their own professional ethical rules and the whistleblowing requirements of legislation like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Even within their own rules, attorneys face contradictions that can make “doing the right thing” easy compared to figuring out what the “right thing” is.

The conflict came principally from a provision of Sarbanes-Oxley that required in-house legal counsel to report SEC violations to the highest legal or executive officer within his or her organization and then, if no appropriate response was forthcoming, to an independent audit committee or the full board of directors. The problem arose because, under some circumstances, the attorney may actually be required to report such conduct to the SEC, thereby violating his or her duty of confidentiality of client information. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct now resolve the conflict thusly:

  • Rule 1.6, governing the confidentiality of sensitive client information, now allows the disclosure of such information to prevent the commission of a crime or fraud that is reasonably likely to substantially injure the financial interests of a third party.
  • Rule 1.13, addressing attorneys who represent organizational clients, allows such attorneys to report any violation of the company’s legal obligations to the highest authority within the company. If such action proves ineffectual and the lawyer believes the violation is reasonably certain to cause substantial harm to the company, he or she may “report out” to a third party, most likely a government regulator.

Of course, these types of situations become much more complex and difficult in practice than in theory. Corporate legal professionals facing such ethical challenges need to seek competent legal advice from an experienced Dallas whistleblower attorney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Our Office
  • Dallas Office
    4514 Cole Ave
    Dallas, Texas 75205
    Phone: 214-306-8045
    Fax: 469-729-9926
  • "Steve Kardell was terrific in representing me in some very adversarial discussions with Citigroup and also later represented me in my testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission."  -Richard Bowen, Citigroup Whistleblower

  • "Incredible knowledge of employee related concerns and equally brilliant knowledge of health care regulations, standards of practice. I would recommend this firm to anyone."  -V.B.

  • "Reaching out to Steve Kardell was the best decision I made. His ability to provide immediate insight and direction was very powerful, and a huge relief during a very stressful time period. For anyone struggling with a whistleblower situation, I would highly recommend at least speaking with Steve. After a 10 minute call with him, I had a better understanding of what I was dealing with. Even better, he gave me some immediate hope. In the end Steve did a better job than I thought was possible. Steve was able to get in contact with people in my organization, that I didn’t have access to. Because of his years of experience, he already has contacts in many organizations in Dallas. The entire situation was handled peacefully. I was impressed by his ability to “keep the peace”–rather than creating a battle with the organization. The reason I didn’t reach out to a lawyer initially, was because I thought it would mean an immediate end to any hope of a positive relationship with the company. Steve was able to address my concerns, and in the end I was able to continue to work for them."  -KS

  • "Never thought my career would end like it did after 30 years of service. I was part of the first round of the so called reduction of force. I asked myself how can I be part of this with 30 years of seniority. How did they pick these 90 plus employees? Now, the culture of this organization made you question every decision they made. It wasn’t what you knew it’s was a culture of who you know. Nonetheless, I did not accept their severance package. I immediately starting looking for an attorney who would take on my case. After the initial call to Steve I had hope again. He was open and honest about everything and reassured me he would do his best for me, and he did. I had an awesome outcome. Thanks Steve you’re the best."  -S.S.

Facebook Twitter Linkedin RSS Feed JD Supra