Lawyering loyalties: Speech rights and duties within twenty-first-century new governance

Fordham Law Review

Volumn 77, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 1245-1267

  Lobel, Orly ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 65349117798     PISSN: 0015704X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (201)

1. Orly Lobel, Citizenship, Organizational Citizenship, and the Laws of Overlapping Obligations, 96 CAL. L. REV. (forthcoming 2009).
2. W. Richard Scott, Professionals in Bureaucracies - Areas of Conflict, in PROFESSIONALIZATION 265-75 (Howard M. Vollmer & Donald L. Mills eds., 1966).
3. See infra text accompanying note 87 on the shift from the Illinois paradigm in Balla v. Gambro, Inc., 584 N.E.2d 104 (Ill. 1991), which excludes in-house lawyers from protections, to extending wrongful termination protections to lawyers in various states including Texas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Montana, New York, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Willy v. Admin. Review Bd., 423 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2005) (Texas);
4. Siedle v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 147 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 1998) (Massachusetts);
5. Kachmar v. Sunguard Data Sys. Inc., 109 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 1997) (Pennsylvania);
6. Goffer v. Marbury, 956 F.2d 1045 (11th Cir. 1992) (Alabama);
7. Lewis v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2003 WL 1746050 (D. Conn. Mar. 18, 2003) (Connecticut);
8. Alexander v. Tandem Staffing Solutions, Inc., 881 So. 2d 607 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (Florida);
9. Heckman v. Zurich Holding Co. of Am., 242 F.R.D. 606 (D. Kan. 2007) (Kansas);
10. GTE Prods. Corp. v. Stewart, 653 N.E.2d 161 (Mass. 1995) (Massachusetts);
11. Burkhart v. Semitool Inc., 5 P.3d 1031 (Mont. 2000) (Montana);
12. Van Asdale v. Int'l Game, Tech., 498 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (D. Nev. 2007) (Nevada);
13. Parker v. M & T Chems., Inc., 566 A.2d 215 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989) (New Jersey);
14. Wieder v. Skala, 609 N.E.2d 105 (N.Y. 1992) (New York);
15. Meadows v. Kindercare Learning Ctrs., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20450 (D. Or. Sept. 29, 2004) (Oregon);
16. Crews v. Buckman Labs Int'l Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852 (Tenn. 2002) (Tennessee);
17. Willy v. Coastal States Mgmt. Co., 939 S.W.2d 193 (Tex. Ct. App. 1996) (Texas);
18. Spratley v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 78 P.3d 603 (Utah 2003) (Utah);
19. U.S. ex rel. Doe v. X Corp., 862 F. Supp. 1502 (E.D. Va. 1994) (Virginia).
20. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).
21. Orly Lobel, The Renew Deal: The Fall of Regulation and the Rise of Governance in Contemporary Legal Thought, 89 MINN. L. REV. 342 (2004) [hereinafter Lobel, The Renew Deal];
22. Orly Lobel, Setting the Agenda for New Governance Research, 89 MINN. L. REV. 498 (2004).
23. JOHN BRAITHWAITE & PETER DRAHOS, GLOBAL BUSINESS REGULATION 28 (2000).
24. See generally On Amir & Orly Lobel, Stumble, Predict, Nudge: How Behavioral Economics Informs Law and Policy, 108 COLUM. L. REV. 2098 (2008);
25. Lobel, The Renew Deal, supra note 5.
26. Jason M. Solomon, Law and Governance in the 21st Century Regulatory State, 86 TEX. L. REV. 819, 834 (2008) (reviewing LAW AND NEW GOVERNANCE IN THE EU AND THE US (Gráinne de Búrca & Joanne Scott eds., 2006);
27. LISA HEINZERLING & MARK V. TUSHNET, THE REGULATORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE STATE: MATERIALS, CASES, COMMENTS (2006)).
28. Orly Lobel, Governing Occupational Safety in the United States, in LAW AND NEW GOVERNANCE IN THE EU AND THE US, supra note 8, at 269.
29. Kenneth A. Bamberger, Regulation as Delegation: Private Firms, Decisionmaking, and Accountability in the Administrative State, 56 DUKE L.J. 377, 380 (2006).
30. IAN AYRES & JOHN BRAITHWAITE, RESPONSIVE REGULATION: TRANSCENDING THE DEREGULATION DEBATE 4-5, 35-41 (1992).
31. Id. at 39.
32. Christine Parker, Meta-regulation: Legal Accountability for Corporate Social Responsibility, in THE NEW CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY: CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE LAW 207, 208 (Doreen McBarnet, Aurora Voiculescu & Tom Campbell eds., 2007) (quoting P. SELZNICK, THE COMMUNITARIAN PERSUASION 102 (2002)).
33. Yuval Feldman & Orly Lobel, Decentralized Enforcement in Organizations: An Experimental Approach, 2 REG. & GOVERNANCE 165, 171-81 (2008) (demonstrating the impact of institutional processes on individual decisions about whether to blow the whistle on illegality).
34. Lobel, supra note 1 (manuscript at 174).
35. Tristin K. Green, Work Culture and Discrimination, 93 CAL. L. REV. 623, 650 (2005).
36. Orly Lobel, Interlocking Regulatory and Industrial Relations: The Governance of Workplace Safety, 57 ADMIN. L. REV. 1071, 1124 (2005).
37. William H. Simon, Toyota Jurisprudence: Legal Theory and Rolling Rule Regimes, in LAW AND NEW GOVERNANCE IN THE EU AND THE US, supra note 8, at 36, 55.
38. Craig W. Thomas, Habitat Conservation Planning, in DEEPENING DEMOCRACY: INSTITUTIONAL INNOVATIONS IN EMPOWERED PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE 144 (Archon Fung & Erik Olin Wright eds., 2003).
39. Sagit Leviner, A New Era of Tax Enforcement: From 'Big Stick' to Responsive Regulation, 42 U. MICH. J.L. REFORM (forthcoming).
40. Cristie L. Ford, New Governance, Compliance, and Principles-Based Securities Regulation, 45 AM. BUS. L.J. 1 passim (2008).
41. Lobel, supra note 1 (manuscript at 181).
42. Id.
43. See generally Feldman & Lobel, supra note 14.
44. Lobel, supra note 1 (manuscript at 173).
45. E. ALLEN LIND & TOM R. TYLER, THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE 187 (1988);
46. Chan W. Kim & Renee A. Mauborgne, Procedural Justice, Attitudes, and Subsidiary Top Management Compliance with Multinationals' Corporate Strategic Decisions, 36 ACAD. MGMT. J. 502 (1993).
47. Elletta Sangrey Callahan & John W. Collins, Employee Attitudes Toward Whistleblowing: Management and Public Policy Implications, 11 J. BUS. ETHICS 939 (1992);
48. Elletta Sangrey Callahan & Terry Morehead Dworkin, Who Blows the Whistle to the Media, and Why: Organizational Characteristics of Media Whistleblowers, 32 AM. BUS. L.J. 151, 165-66(1994).
49. Lobel, supra note 1 (manuscript at 219-21).
50. Id.
51. Cynthia Estlund, Rebuilding the Law of the Workplace in an Era of Self-Regulation, 105 COLUM. L. REV. 319, 375-76 (2005) (describing the Sarbanes Oxley Act's signaling effect in strengthening internal reporting systems).
52. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 § 301, 15 U.S.C. 78j-l (2006).
53. Heather S. Murr, The Continuing Expansive Pressure to Hold Employers Strictly Liable for Supervisory Sexual Extortion: An Alternative Approach Based on Reasonableness, 39 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 529, 625-26 (2006).
54. Richard E. Moberly, Protecting Whistleblowers by Contract, 79 U. COLO. L. REV. 975, 1008-09 (2008)
55. (citing Kimberly D. Krawiec, Cosmetic Compliance and the Failure of Negotiated Governance, 81 WASH. U. L. Q. 487, 497 (2003)).
56. Joiner v. Benton Cmty. Bank, 411 N.E.2d 229, 231 (Ill. 1980).
57. 547 U.S. 410 (2006);
58. see infra Part II.A.
59. 584 N.E.2d 104 (Ill. 1991);
60. see infra Part II.B.
61. Brief for Ass'n of Deputy Dist. Attorneys & Cal. Prosecutors Ass'n as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent at 2, Garcetti, 547 U.S. 410 (No. 04-473), 2005 WL 1767121 [hereinafter Deputy Dist. Attorneys Amici Brief].
62. Joyce Howard Price, Justices Ease Whistleblower Protections: Critics Say 5-4 Ruling Will Tie Hands of Civil Workers, WASH. TIMES, May 31, 2006, at Al
63. (citing Stephen Kohn, chair of the board of the National Whistleblower Center, calling Garcetti the "worst Supreme Court ruling on whistleblowing in 50 years").
64. Representatives of the National Whistleblower Center testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform in response to Garcetti v. Ceballos: "The Garcetti v. Ceballos decision represents the most significant judicial threat to employee whistleblowers in nearly forty years, not only on the basis of its holding, but on the tone it has set for countless lower court rulings. Legislative action is now necessary." What Price Free Speech?: Whistleblowers and the Garcetti v. Ceballos Decision: Before the H. Comm. On Government Reform, 109th Cong. 1 (2006) [hereinafter Whistleblower Hearing] (testimony of Stephen M. Kohn, Chair, Board of Directors, National Whistleblower Center), available at http://www.whistleblowers.org/storage/whistleblowers/documents/ceballos. final.testimony.pdf.
65. Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 421.
66. Id. at 413-14.
67. Id. at 415.
68. Id.
69. Id.
70. Ceballos v. Garcetti, 361 F.3d 1168, 1174 (9th Cir. 2004). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit relied on Roth v. Veteran's Administration, 856 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1998), where an employee who was hired with the express purpose of reporting internal waste and corruption, was demoted in response to such reporting. In the Roth case, the Ninth Circuit held that, while Barry Roth's statements were made pursuant to his professional job responsibilities, his speech was protected because it was about a matter of public concern. Ceballos, 361 F.3d at 1175 (citing Roth, 856 F.2d at 1406).
71. Ceballos, 361 F.3d at 1180.
72. In a concurring opinion, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain urged his court to revisit the precedent on which they relied so that, "when public employees speak in the course of carrying out their routine, required employment obligations, they have no personal interest in the content of that speech that gives rise to a First Amendment right." Id. at 1189 (O'Scannlain, J., concurring).
73. Judge O'Scannlain distinguished between "speech offered by a public employee acting as an employee in carrying out his or her ordinary job duties" and speech "spoken by an employee acting as a citizen expressing his or her personal views on disputed matters of public import." Id. at 1186-87.
74. Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 423.
75. Id. at 411.
76. Id. at 422.
77. Id. at 427 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
78. Id. at 437 (Souter, J., dissenting).
79. Code of Ethics for Government Service, H.R. Con. Res. 175, 85th Cong. (1958). Justice David Souter offered examples of a public auditor who discovers the embezzlement of public funds; a building inspector who reports an attempt to bribe him, and a law enforcement officer who expressly balks at a superior's order to violate constitutional rights he is sworn to protect - all of which would not be afforded First Amendment protection against retaliation under the majority ruling. Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 433-34 (Souter, J., dissenting).
80. Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 432 (Souter, J., dissenting) (alteration in original) (quoting ROBERT FROST, Two Tramps in Mud Time, in COLLECTED POEMS, PROSE, AND PLAYS 251, 252 (Richard Poirier & Mark Richardson eds., 1995)).
81. Justice Souter continues by citing the job descriptions on the website of the District Attorney's office: "Not to put too fine a point on it, the Human Resources Division of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Ceballos's employer, is telling anyone who will listen that its work 'provides the personal satisfaction and fulfillment that comes with knowing you are contributing essential services to the citizens of Los Angeles County.'" Id. at 432 n.4 (citing Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Career Opportunities, http://da.co.la.ca.us/hr/default.htm (last visited Feb. 21, 2009)).
82. Id. at 430.
83. Id. at 424.
84. Id. at 427 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
85. Early decisions had adopted a per se rule that public employees had no First Amendment rights as employees, reflecting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's famous assertion that a police officer "may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman." McAuliffe v. City of New Bedford, 29 N.E. 517, 517 (Mass. 1892). Later decisions overturned the rule, recognizing that "[g]overnment employees are often in the best position to know what ails the agencies for which they work." Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 674 (1994).
86. The leading ruling before Garcetti was that an employee speaks as a citizen when raising matters of public concern. The Pickering test balanced "the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern [against] the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees." Pickering v. Bd. of Educ, 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968).
87. Thus, the balancing test took into account the employer's institutional efficiency and the content, manner, time, and place of the speech. Waters, 511 U.S. at 674.
88. Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 447 (Breyer, J., dissenting).
89. Id. at 446-47.
90. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 321 (1981);
91. see also Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 544 (2001) ("Restricting [Legal Services Corporation] attorneys in advising their clients and in presenting arguments and analyses to the courts distorts the legal system by altering the traditional role of the attorneys....").
92. Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 447 (citing Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995);
93. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)).
94. Id. at 425.
95. Id. at 440.
96. Justice Souter further asserted that constitutional protections should not depend on "the vagaries of state or federal law." Id. (citing Bd. of Comm'rs, Wabaunsee County v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 680 (1996)).
97. Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 440.
98. For example, in Ruotolo v. New York, a safety officer drafted a report detailing significant health and environmental issues within his precinct. The officer claimed that the report led to retaliation against him, and he sued under the First Amendment. Dismissing the case, the court held that because Angelo Ruotolo was acting within the scope of his employment, his speech was not protected. In Ruotolo, the report contained information regarding serious health and environmental threats to the community, and Ruotolo, the person charged with the task of locating and reporting these problems, was fired for doing his job. 514 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2008).
99. Foraker v. Chaffinch, 501 F.3d 231, 247 (3d Cir. 2007).
100. Id.
101. Mills v. City of Evansville, 452 F.3d 646, 648 (2006).
102. David G. Savage, Supreme Court Limits Free Speech in Workplace for Public Employees, SEATTLE TIMES, May 31, 2006, at Al (quoting Steven Shapiro, Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)).
103. Cynthia Estlund, Harmonizing Work and Citizenship: A Due Process Solution to a First Amendment Problem, 2006 SUP. CT. REV. 115, 152.
104. The Supreme Court, 2005 Term - Leading Cases, 120 HARV. L. REV. 273, 277 (2006)
105. (citing Erwin Chemerinsky, An Independent Analysis of the Los Angeles Police Department's Board of Inquiry Report on the Rampart Scandal, 34 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 545, 549 (2001)).
106. Deputy Dist. Attorneys Amici Brief, supra note 37, at 2.
107. Whistleblowers Hearing, supra note 38, at 72 (prepared statement of Richard Ceballos, Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney).
108. Id. If passed, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007, H.R. 985, 110th Cong. (2007), is intended to strengthen federal employee protections by creating procedures for federal employee whistleblowers to have their cases heard in federal court, thereby overturning Garcetti v. Ceballos.
109. Id.
110. Balla v. Gambro, Inc., 584 N.E.2d 104, 106 (Ill. 1991).
111. Id.
112. Id.
113. Id. at 113.
114. Id. at 111.
115. Id. at 109.
116. Id.;
117. see also ILL. RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1.6(b) (2007).
118. Balla, 584 N.E.2d at 109.
119. Id.
120. Id. at 113.
121. Id. at 110.
122. Id.
123. Id. at 113 (Freeman, J., dissenting).
124. Oregon, Montana, Utah, Kansas, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, Nevada, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York have recognized such claims. See supra note 3.
125. Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court, 876 P.2d 487 (Cal. 1994);
126. GTE Prods. Corp. v. Stewart, 653 N.E.2d 161 (Mass. 1995);
127. see also Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 906 (Ct. App. 2001).
128. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 876 P.2d 487.
129. Id. at 490.
130. Id. at 502.
131. Id.
132. See generally id.
133. Id. at 503.
134. Id.
135. See, e.g., Burkhart v. Semitool, Inc., 5 P.3d 1031 (Mont. 2000);
136. Parker v. M & T Chems., Inc., 566 A.2d 215 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989);
137. Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int'l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852 (Tenn. 2002);
138. Spratley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 78 P.3d 603 (Utah 2003).
139. Parker, 566 A.2d at 220;
140. see H. Lowell Brown, Ethical Professionalism and At-Will Employment: Remedies for Corporate Counsel When Corporate Objectives and Counsel's Ethical Duties Collide, 10 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 1, 4 (1996);
141. Michael P. Sheehan, Retaliatory Discharge of In-House Counsel: A Cause of Action - Ethical Obligations v. Fiduciary Duties, 45 DEPAUL L. Rev. 859, 863 (1996);
142. Sally R. Weaver, Client Confidences in Disputes Between In-House Attorneys and Their Employer-Clients: Much Ado About Nothing - or Something?, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 483, 491 (1997);
143. Brett Lane, Comment, Blowing the Whistle on Balla v. Gambro: The Emergence of an In-House Counsel's Cause of Action in Tort for Retaliatory Discharge, 29 J. LEGAL PROF. 235 (2005).
144. GTE Prods. Corp. v. Stewart, 653 N.E.2d 161, 166 (Mass. 1995).
145. Id. (citation omitted).
146. Crews, 78 S.W.3d at 861 (citations omitted).
147. See Louis Kaplow & Stephen Shavell, Legal Advice About Information to Present in Litigation: Its Effects and Social Desirability, 102 HARV. L. REV. 565 (1989).
148. GTE Prods. Corp., 653 N.E.2d at 167.
149. See, e.g., Hoffman v. Baltimore Police Dep't, 379 F. Supp. 2d 778, 782 (D. Md. 2005);
150. Spratley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 78 P.3d 603, 609 (Utah 2003).
151. Willy v. Admin. Review Bd., 423 F.3d 483, 498 (5th Cir. 2005).
152. ABA Comm. on Ethics and Prof'1 Responsibility, Formal Op. 01-424 (2001). Model Rule 1.6(b)(2) permits an attorney's divulgence of client confidences in order to state a claim against the client. MODEL RULES OF PROF'L RESPONSIBILITY R. 1.6 (2003).
153. ABA Comm. on Ethics and Prof 1 Responsibility, Formal Op. 01-424 (2001).
154. Lucian T. Pera, Lawyers as Whistleblowers: A Quick Tour of the Emerging Law of Retaliatory Discharge of In-House Counsel, in UNDERSTANDING DEVELOPMENTS IN WHISTLEBLOWER LAW 3 YEARS AFTER SARBANES-OXLEY 619 (2006).
155. Kathleen Clark, Government Lawyers and Confidentiality Norms, 85 WASH. U. L. REV. 1033, 1095 (2008).
156. The Public Agency Attorney Accountability Act, Assemb. B. 363, 2002 Assemb. (Cal. 2002) (vetoed Sept. 30, 2002).
157. California Governor Unexpectedly Vetoes Government Attorney Whistleblower Bill, 71 U.S.L.W. 2243 (Oct. 15, 2002).
158. United States v. Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, 1500 (9th Cir. 1996) ("This valuable social service of counseling clients and bringing them into compliance with the law cannot be performed ... [if] lawyers will be turned into government informants.").
159. Richard Ceballos indeed reported to his supervisor that a prior precedent, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), compelled him to turn over the memo he wrote on the government misconduct to the defense.
160. United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (1995).
161. William H. Simon, Ethical Discretion in Lawyering, 101 HARV. L REV. 1083, 1084-90 (1988).
162. Charles Fried, The Lawyer as Friend: The Moral Foundations of the Lawyer-Client Relation, 85 YALE L.J. 1060, 1065 (1976).
163. Id.;
164. see also Ethan J. Leib, Friendship and the Law, 54 UCLA L. REV. 631 (2007).
165. United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805, 817-18 (1984).
166. William H. Simon, After Confidentiality: Rethinking the Professional Responsibilities of the Business Lawyer, 75 FORDHAM L. REV. 1453, 1468 (2006).
167. Id. at 1454.
168. Id. at 1471.
169. Robert C. Post, Subsidized Speech, 106 YALE L.J. 151, 172 (1996).
170. ARTHUR ISAK APPLBAUM, ETHICS FOR ADVERSARIES 259 (1999).
171. Allan Dinkoff, Analyzing the Attorney Whistleblower Claim: A Modest Suggestion for the Twenty-First Century, in UNDERSTANDING DEVELOPMENTS IN WHISTLEBLOWER LAW 2 YEARS AFTER SARBANES-OXLEY 371 (2005) (citing then-SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt).
172. Id. (citing Giovanni Prezioso, Gen. Counsel, Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, Remarks Before American Bar Association Section of Business Law (Apr. 3, 2004), available at www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch040304gpp.htm).
173. Id.
174. Developments in the Law - Corporations and Society, 117 HARV. L. REV. 2169, 2227 (2004).
175. Stephen M. Bainbridge & Christina J. Johnson, Managerialism, Legal Ethics, and Sarbanes-Oxley Section 307, 2004 MICH. ST. L. REV. 299, 301.
176. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has requested comments on whether lawyers should be required to "report out" externally if the Board fails to respond to the lawyer's concerns in an appropriate fashion. Proposed Rule: Implementation of Standards of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, SEC (Jan. 30, 2003), http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/33-8186.htm. The SEC's Sarbanes-Oxley rules already permit an attorney to report out on a voluntary basis under certain circumstances, 17 C.F.R. § 205.3(d) (2008), as do the ABA Model Rules. MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1.13 (2003).
177. MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1.6 (disclosure of confidential client information);
178. id. R. 1.13 (reporting up within an organizational client);
179. see C. Evan Stewart, Liability for Securities Lawyers in the Post-Enron Era, 35 REV. SECS. & COMMODITIES REG. 171 (2002);
180. C. Evan Stewart, The Attorney-Client Privilege: The Best of Times, the Worst of Times, PROF. LAW. 63 (1999);
181. C.E. Stewart, This Is a Fine Mess You 've Gotten Me Into: The Revolution in the Legal Profession, 110 N.Y.Bus. L.J. 15, 15 (2006).
182. MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1.6 (2001) (amended 2002).
183. AM. BAR ASS'N TASK FORCE ON CORP. RESP., FINAL RESPONSIBILITY 43-46 (2003);
184. ABA Comm. on Ethics and Prof'1 Responsibility, Formal Op. 01-424 (2001).
185. Mourad v. Auto. Club Ins. Ass'n, 465 N.W.2d 395, 400 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991);
186. Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int'l, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 852 (Tenn. 2002);
187. Sara A. Corello, In-house Counsel's Right to Sue for Retaliatory Discharge, 92 COLUM. L. REV. 389, 389 (1992) (arguing that "in-house attorneys should have the right to sue for retaliatory discharge when they are dismissed for refusing to violate their professional ethics or for urging their employers to comply with the law");
188. Lisa Overall, Retaliatory Discharge and In-House Counsel - A Comparative Analysis of State Law in the Wake of the Tennessee Supreme Court's Decision in Crews v. Buckman Laboratories, 33 U. MEM. L. REV. 629 (2003).
189. Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts, 69 Fed. Reg. 28,994, 29,019 (2004).
190. Simon, supra note 118, at 1454.
191. MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1.13 (e) (2003).
192. 17 C.F.R. § 205.3(b)(10) (2008).
193. ABA Comm. on Ethics and Prof 1 Responsibility Formal Op. 01-424 (2001)
194. Id.
195. Id.
196. See supra notes 128-43 and accompanying text.
197. 15 U.S.C. § 77k (2006).
198. JOHN C. COFFEE, JR., GATEKEEPERS: THE PROFESSIONS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 195 (2006).
199. Peter C. Kostant, Sarbanes-Oxley and Changing the Norms of Corporate Lawyering, 2004 MICH. ST. L. REV. 541, 542.
200. Richard W. Painter, Toward a Market for Lawyer Disclosure Services: In Search of Optimal Whistleblowing Rules, 63 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 221, 224 (1995).
201. PHILIP SELZNICK, TVA AND THE GRASSROOTS: A STUDY IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF FORMAL ORGANIZATION 3 (Harper & Row 1966) (1949).