Author: TSA Press

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
a
new
report
from
the
Department
of
Justice,
what
percentage
of
federal
judges
are
not
enrolled
the
U.S.
Marshals
Service’s
home
security
program?

Hint:
The
report
recommends
seeking
input
directly
from
judges
to
boost
participation.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

In
notable
news
for
the
e-discovery
industry,
the
legal
software
and
services
provider

Elevate
has
acquired

Redgrave
Data,
a
consulting
firm
that
provides
services
and
software
for
e-discovery
and
data
analytics.

Redgrave’s
founders
Mollie
Nichols,
Scott
Culbertson,
Dave
Lewis,
Mark
Noel,
and
Lindsey
Worth
will
all
join
Elevate’s
management
team.

Redgrave
Data
was
formed
in
2022
as
a
spin-off
from
the
law firm Redgrave
LLP,
which
specializes
in
e-discovery
and
information
law,
with
the
goal
of
providing “innovative
services
and
solutions
centered
at
the
intersection
of
the
law,
technology,
and
science.”

Nichols,
who
had
been
Redgrave
Data’s
CEO,
is
a
former
Redgrave
partner
and
e-discovery
expert
who,
prior
to
founding
Redgrave
Data,
was
head
of
advanced
client
data
solutions
at
Hogan
Lovells.

Other
founding
members
of
the
leadership
team
included Scott
Culbertson,
who
previously
served
in
senior
management
roles
at
several
data
analytics
and
discovery
solutions
companies; Dave
Lewis,
who
was
previously
executive
VP
for
AI
research,
development,
and
ethics
at
Reveal-Brainspace; Mark
Noel,
previously director
of
advanced
client
data
solutions
at
Hogan
Lovells,
leader
of
Stroz
Friedberg’s
advanced
technology
consulting
practice,
and
managing
director
at
Catalyst,
where
he
helped
develop
machine
learning
tools
and
workflows; and Lindsey
Worth,
a
former
litigator
who
was
most
recently
senior
manager,
Americas, for
advanced
client
data
solutions at
Hogan
Lovells.

Redgrave
Data’s
primary
focus
is
on
providing
innovative
and
defensible
technology
strategies,
insights,
services,
and
solutions
to
customers
who
face
challenges
with
electronically
stored
information
in
a
legal
context.

In
a
2022
interview
with
LawSites,
Nichols
told
me
that
she
believed
Redgrave
Data’s
“special
sauce”
was
its
team
of
lawyer-technologists
who
are
able
to
look
at
a
problem
and
come
up
with
a
solution
—
often
building
the
solutions
themselves
if
no
commercial
product
fits
the
bill.

It
has
particularly
expertise
in
technology-assisted
review,
artificial
intelligence,
generative
AI,
analytics,
robotic
process
automation,
and
data
visualization.

In
fact,
I
recently
interviewed
three
Redgrave
Data
scientists,
including
cofounder
Lewis,
for
my
LawNext
podcast
on
the
question
of

whether
generative
AI
is
the
new
paradigm
for
TAR
in
e-discovery.

“We
founded
Elevate
to
integrate
expertise
and
technology
to
innovate
and
transform
work
with
a
legal
and
business
dimension
that
needs
to
be
done
every
day,
often
at
scale,
and
sometimes
urgently,”
Liam
Brown,
Elevate’s
chairman
and
CEO,
said
in
a
statement
announcing
the
acquisition.
“We
recognized
how
Redgrave
Data
‘run
a
different
race’
to
tackle
the
world’s
thorniest
legal
data
and
technology
issues
strategically,
efficiently,
and
effectively.”

Nichols,
in
the
same
announcement,
said,
“Joining
our
strengths
to
those
of
another
Chambers
Band
1
NewLaw
company
is
going
to
expand
our
ability
to
provide
outstanding
services
to
our
clients.
Teaming
up
with
Elevate
will
provide
a
global
platform
to
support
our
international
clients
more
effectively.
Elevate’s
resources
will
also
allow
us
to
accelerate
the
development
of
our
innovation
projects
more
efficiently
and
at
scale.”

Short-form
video
content
is
becoming
a
must
for
law
firm
owners
who
focus
on
content
marketing. 

Considering
the
fleeting
attention
spans
of
modern
(legal)
consumers,
one
of
the
best
ways
to
get
your
message
across
—
and
to
gain
the
trust
of
potential
clients
—
is
to
thrust
your
speaking
image
upon
the
screen
and
let
them
get
to
know
your
most
authentic
self. 

Of
course,
this
is
a
challenge
for
lots
of
lawyers,
who
are
a
bit
shy
about
putting
themselves
out
there
like
that.
So
how
do
you
overcome
it?

To
find
out,
we
brought


Sarah
Parker,
of


Hope
Immigration
Law,
onto
the
Non-Eventcast
podcast,
to
talk
about
how
she
built
a
video
marketing
campaign
that
really
rocks.

Sarah
kicked
things
off
by
listing
her
favorite
coffee
shops
in
and
around
Boston
&
Cambridge,
in
case
you
need
a
shot
of
caffeine,
and
happen
to
be
in
the
area
.
.
.
(1:31). 

After
that,
Sarah
discussed
how
she
started
her
firm
straight
out
of
law
school
(4:03)
and
why
she
decided
to
focus
on
immigration
law
(5:57).
Next,
Sarah
talked
about
why
she’s
focused
on
social
media
marketing
(7:14)
and
how
she
began
to
create
authentic
videos
about
her
life
and
work
(8:44),
including
how
she
dips
her
toe
into
non-legal
subject
matter
to
better
engage
her
audience
(13:25). 

Sarah
also
discussed
how
she
chose
the
social
media
platforms
she
uses
(10:55),
and
how
and
when
she
repurposes
content
(9:35). 
Sarah
then
laid
out
her
process
for
how
she
creates
videos,
including
logistics
and
tech
(14:17),
including
how
she
draws
inspiration
from
popular
creators
(16:51). 

Finally,
Sarah
covered
how
she
launched
her
marketing
platform
(18:52),
and
selected
her
brand
name
(21:16).

If
you
were
hoping
to
learn
something
about
video
marketing
in
a
law
firm
environment,
we’ve
built
your
checklist. 

So,
give
a
listen
to
this
episode
of
the
Non-Eventcast
podcast
to
make
your
social
media
presence,
a
whole
lot
more
eventful.

Feel
free
to
also
check
out
our CRM
Buyers
Guide at
the
Non-Event
for
more
on
the
latest
resources
to
grow
your
business.
(The
Non-Event
is
supported
by
vendor
sponsorships.)

The
greatest
challenge
for
the
in-house
lawyer
today
is
reconciling
the
role
of
being
a
corporate
business
partner
with
the
role
of
being
the
corporate
guardian.
Balancing
these
roles
can
be
fraught
with
ethical
pitfalls.
To
navigate
these
pitfalls,
it
is
important
for
the
in-house
lawyer
to
know
and
understand
the
ethical
rules
that
have
been
adopted
to
guide
their
work
and
why
they
have
been
adopted
in
the
first
place.

Background

The
modern
corporate
in-house
counsel
faced
significant
criticism
during
the
early
21st
century
in
the
wake
of
scandals
that
involved
the
collapse
of
corporate
giants
like
Enron
and
WorldCom.
The
failures
of
in-house
lawyers
during
this
period
were
largely
the
result
of
their
inability
to
effectively
serve
as
ethical
gatekeepers,
a
responsibility
that
should
have
helped
prevent
the
fraudulent
activities
that
led
to
these
catastrophic
corporate
downfalls.

The
Wave
Of
Scandals

Enron’s
collapse
was
a
result
of
widespread
fraud,
particularly
through
the
manipulation
of
accounting
practices
and
the
creation
of
off-balance-sheet
entities
to
hide
debt.
The
in-house
lawyers
at
Enron
failed
in
several
critical
ways:

• 
  Failure
  To
  Challenge
  Questionable
  Practices.
  Despite
  clear
  evidence
  of
  unethical
  and
  illegal
  practices,
  such
  as
  the
  creation
  of
  complex
  financial
  structures
  designed
  to
  mislead
  investors
  and
  regulators,
  the
  in-house
  lawyers
  did
  not
  take
  meaningful
  steps
  to
  challenge
  or
  stop
  these
  practices.
  In
  fact,
  the
  in-house
  lawyers
  often
  worked
  to
  facilitate
  these
  schemes,
  interpreting
  the
  law
  in
  ways
  that
  allowed
  the
  company
  to
  conceal
  its
  financial
  problems.
• 
  Conflicted
  Loyalties.
  The
  general
  counsel
  (GC),
  as
  a
  senior
  executive,
  had
  a
  duty
  to
  the
  board
  and
  shareholders
  to
  protect
  the
  integrity
  of
  the
  company.
  However,
  the
  GC
  at
  the
  time
  appeared
  to
  prioritize
  the
  interests
  of
  the
  CEO
  and
  other
  senior
  executives
  over
  the
  interests
  of
  shareholders
  and
  the
  company’s
  long-term
  health,
  creating
  a
  conflict
  of
  interest.
• 
  Ethical
  Blind
  Spots.
  The
  in-house
  lawyers
  failed
  to
  recognize
  or
  act
  on
  the
  broader
  ethical
  implications
  of
  the
  company’s
  actions,
  focusing
  on
  legal
  technicalities
  rather
  than
  the
  spirit
  of
  the
  law
  or
  the
  company’s
  ethical
  responsibilities.

WorldCom’s
scandal
involved
the
fraudulent
inflation
of
assets
by
$11
billion,
which
led
to
the
largest
bankruptcy
in
U.S.
history
at
the
time.
The
failure
of
WorldCom’s
in-house
lawyers
highlighted
similar
issues:

• 
  Lack
  Of
  Oversight.
  WorldCom’s
  in-house
  lawyers
  failed
  to
  establish
  or
  enforce
  appropriate
  oversight
  mechanisms
  within
  the
  company
  where
  the
  fraud
  was
  taking
  place.
• 
  Failure
  To
  Protect
  Whistleblowers.
  Employees
  who
  had
  suspicions
  about
  WorldCom’s
  financial
  practices
  found
  little
  support
  from
  the
  in-house
  lawyers
  who
  were
  responsible
  for
  ensuring
  that
  whistleblower
  protections
  are
  enforced.
  This
  lack
  of
  support
  contributed
  to
  a
  culture
  of
  silence,
  which
  allowed
  the
  fraud
  to
  grow
  unchecked.

The
Enron
and
WorldCom
cases
were
emblematic
of
a
broader
crisis
of
corporate
governance,
where
in-house
lawyers
failed
in
their
role
as
ethical
stewards.
Several
common
factors
contributed
to
these
failures:

• 
  Overemphasis
  On
  Legalism
  Over
  Ethics.
  In-house
  lawyers
  during
  this
  era
  tended
  to
  focus
  on
  what
  was
  legally
  permissible
  rather
  than
  what
  was
  ethical
  or
  in
  the
  best
  long-term
  interest
  of
  the
  company
  and
  its
  stakeholders.
  Many
  of
  the
  financial
  maneuvers
  used
  by
  companies
  like
  Enron,
  WorldCom,
  and
  others
  might
  have
  been
  legally
  defensible
  but
  were
  deeply
  unethical
  and
  unsustainable.
• 
  Weak
  Or
  Compromised
  Independence.
  In
  many
  companies,
  in-house
  lawyers
  were
  heavily
  influenced
  by
  the
  executive
  team
  and
  did
  not
  have
  the
  independence
  necessary
  to
  stand
  up
  to
  improper
  or
  unethical
  demands
  from
  CEOs
  or
  CFOs.
  This
  compromised
  their
  ability
  to
  serve
  as
  independent
  guardians
  of
  corporate
  integrity.
• 
  Lack
  Of
  Communication
  With
  The
  Board
  Of
  Directors.
  In-house
  lawyers
  often
  failed
  to
  adequately
  communicate
  legal
  and
  ethical
  risks
  to
  the
  board,
  either
  because
  they
  were
  sidelined
  or
  because
  they
  downplayed
  risks
  in
  favor
  of
  short-term
  financial
  performance.
  In
  some
  cases,
  in-house
  lawyers
  were
  complicit
  in
  keeping
  boards
  in
  the
  dark
  about
  major
  red
  flags,
  such
  as
  significant
  off-balance-sheet
  liabilities
  or
  aggressive
  accounting
  practices.

Response
To
The
Wave
Of
Scandals

The
Enron
and
WorldCom
scandals
prompted
the
American
Bar
Association
(ABA)
to
tighten
its
ethical
rules
by
clarifying
the
in-house
lawyer’s
duty
to
the
organization,
strengthening
reporting
obligations,
and
emphasizing
the
in-house
lawyer’s
role
in
preventing
corporate
fraud.

Impact
Of
These
Changes

Prevention
Of
Future
Scandals.
The
ABA
sought
to
prevent
lawyers
from
becoming
complicit
in
corporate
fraud
by
imposing
clearer
reporting
duties
and
enabling
in-house
lawyers
to
break
confidentiality
in
certain
cases.

• 
  Increased
  Accountability.
  The
  ABA
  sought
  to
  hold
  in-house
  lawyers
  more
  accountable
  for
  addressing
  and
  preventing
  misconduct
  within
  organizations.
• 
  Stronger
  Ethical
  Culture.
  The
  ABA’s
  rule
  changes
  were
  part
  of
  a
  broader
  movement
  toward
  enhancing
  the
  ethical
  culture
  within
  both
  the
  legal
  profession
  and
  corporate
  America,
  emphasizing
  transparency,
  integrity,
  and
  the
  in-house
  lawyer’s
  role
  as
  a
  gatekeeper.

In-house
lawyers
play
a
crucial
role
in
driving
business
success,
but
they
also
bear
the
weighty
responsibility
of
safeguarding
the
organization’s
ethical
integrity.
While
it
is
essential
to
support
innovation
and
growth,
the
in-house
lawyer
has
an
ethical
duty
to
protect
the
company,
a
duty
that
can
never
be
compromised.
In-house
lawyers
must
always
remain
vigilant,
ready
to
speak
up
when
legal
or
ethical
boundaries
are
crossed.
When
necessary,
in-house
lawyers
must
even
speak
out
to
ensure
the
organization’s
long-term
health
and
compliance.
Staying
grounded
in
the
ethical
rules
is
not
just
a
professional
obligation
—
it’s
a
critical
safeguard
for
the
organization
and
the
lawyer’s
career.
Ultimately,
failing
to
uphold
these
responsibilities
could
result
in
more
than
just
a
business
failure
—
it
could
cost
you
your
bar
license.

If
you
are
interested
in
hearing
more
on
this
topic

check
out
Ethics
for
In-House
Counsel:
Navigating
the
Ethical
Responsibilities
of
In-House
Counsel
to
the
Organization’s
President,
Board
of
Directors,
and
Employees,
available
only
via
IHC
On
Demand
(with
CLE!).

---

Lisa
Lang
is
an
in-house
lawyer
and
thought
leader
who
is
passionate
about
all
things
in-house. 
She
has
recently
launched
a
website
and
blog
Why
This,
Not
That™
(www.lawyerlisalang.com
)
to
serve
as
a
resource
for
in-house
lawyers. 
You
can
e-mail
her
at




[email protected]


,
connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn 
(https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawyerlisalang/)
or
follow
her
on
Twitter
(@lang_lawyer).

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

[Diddy]
has
a
big
house.
He
buys
in
bulk.
I
think
they
have
Costcos
in
every
place
where
he
has
a
home.
I
mean,
have
you
sat
in
a
parking
lot
of
a
Costco
and
see
what
people
walk
out
of
there
with?
I
don’t
think
it
was
a
thousand.
Let’s
just
say
it
was
a
lot.

I
mean,
there
is
a
Costco
right
down
the
street.
I
think
Americans
buy
in
bulk,
as
we
know.

—

Marc
Agnifilo
of
Agnifilo
Intrater,
in
comments
given
to

TMZ
and
the

New
York
Post,
concerning
his
client
Sean
“Diddy”
Combs’s
reportedly
overwhelming
supply
of
baby
oil.
During
a
raid
of
the
music
mogul’s
homes,
federal
prosecutors
claim
that
more
than
1,000
bottles
of
baby
oil
were
found.
“I
don’t
know
where
the
number
‘1,000’
came
from,”
Agnifilo
told
TMZ.
“I
can’t
imagine
it’s
thousands
[of
bottles
of
baby
oil
and
lube],
and
I’m
not
really
sure
what
the
baby
oil
has
to
do
with
anything.”
When
it
was
explained
that
the
oil
could
be
used
during
an
orgy,
Agnifilo
said,
“I
don’t
know
what
you
need
a
thousand
[for].
One
bottle
of
baby
oil
goes
a
long
way.
I
don’t
know
what
you
need
a
thousand
for.”
Agnifilo’s
firm
was
last
seen
making
a

cringeworthy
filing
error
in
Diddy’s
case.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.