Sponsored by the Young Lawyers; Co-sponsored by In-House Counsel and Corporate Governance
Thursday 3/22/2012 10:15 am - 11:30 am PST
Florentine I, Promenade Level

Sponsored by Corporate Documents and Process; Co-sponsored by Corporate Counsel, Corporate Governance and Middle Market and Small Business
Thursday 3/22/2012 10:30 am - 12:30 pm PST
Milano III, Promenade Level

Sponsored by Corporate Counsel and co-sponsored by Corporate Compliance
Thursday 3/22/2012 2:30 pm - 4:30 pm PST
Milano III, Promenade Level

Thursday 3/22/2012 7:30 pm - 10:00 pm
Sushi Roku, Forum Shops at Caesars Palace
Must register and pay in advance, $90 per guest

Sponsored by Cyberspace Law and co-sponsored by Corporate Counsel
Friday 3/23/2012 8:00 am - 10:00 am PST
Milano III, Promenade Level

Friday 3/23/2012 9:30 am - 10:30 am PST
Octavius 13, Promenade Level
Toll-free dial-in number (U.S. and Canada):
(866) 646-6488
International dial-in number:
(707) 287-9583
Conference code:
4373590974

Sponsored by Corporate Counsel and co-sponsored by White Collar
Friday 3/23/2012 10:30 am - 12:30 pm PST
Milano II, Promenade Level

Friday 3/23/2012 2:30 pm - 4:30 pm PST
Milano IV, Promenade Level
Sponsored by Cyberspace Law and co-sponsored by Corporate Counsel

Friday 3 /23/2012 4:30PM - 5:30PM PST
Octavius 16, Promenade Level
Toll-free dial-in number (U.S. and Canada):
(866) 646-6488
International dial-in number:
(707) 287-9583
Conference code:
5716725219

Sponsored by Middle Market and Small Business and co-sponsored by Corporate Counsel
Saturday 3/24/2012 8:00 am - 10:00 am PST
Milano III, Promenade Level

Sponsored by Professional Responsibility; Co-sponsored by Business Law Education, Corporate Counsel, Cyberspace Law and International Business Law
Saturday 3/24/2012 8:00 am - 10:00 am PST
Milano VII, Promenade Level

Sponsored by White Collar
Saturday 3/24/2012 10:30 am - 12:30 pm PST
Milano V, Promenade Level

Sponsored by White Collar and co-sponsored by Corporate Counsel
Saturday 3/24/2012 2:30 pm - 4:30 pm PST
Milano II, Promenade Level

Many companies have appointed an individual to assume the role of Chief Compliance Officer ("CCO") over the last decade or so. While some companies have organized the CCO role separate from that of the General Counsel ("GC"), other entities have the same individual serve as both CCO and GC. Although there is no requirement that an entity separate or combine those functions, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines do provide credit for entities who meet certain requirements, including by appointing a compliance officer with "direct reporting obligations to the governing authority or an appropriate subgroup thereof (e.g., an audit committee of the board of directors)." There has, however, been some prominent criticism lodged against entities that have become the subject of government investigations regarding their combination of the roles. Such well-publicized criticism, among other factors, has lead many companies to appoint a CCO who is separate from the GC. Even when the functions are separated, the GC and CCO often time find themselves working together. Regardless of how an entity organizes the CCO function, it is important to consider whether communications with that individual will remain privileged.

So, you are in-house counsel and are familiar with the ropes of reviewing agreements, advising on employment law issues, arguing with others over indemnification clause language, drafting language for the employee handbook and making sure that outside counsel are on track with any litigation. It is the other title printed on your letterhead that you may not have given much thought to - "Chief Compliance and Ethics Officer." What does this mean for your day-to-day legal responsibilities, and are you really prepared to meet the challenges of "wearing this hat?"

When I'm not teaching, or studying how pop culture portrays lawyers, or trying to figure out why smart officers and directors manage to get themselves into hot water so often, I spend my working hours studying the behavior of professionals in chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. Sometimes I'm studying how lawyers navigate the strange waters of conflicts of interest in bankruptcy; other times, I'm trying to figure out the exact nature of the "client" in a bankruptcy case. Most recently, though, I've been studying fees charged in large chapter 11 cases. I moonlight as a fee examiner, which means that some bankruptcy courts have appointed me to help them review professional fees and expenses.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that expenses associated with a third party electronic database service can constitute taxable costs. In re Ricoh Co., Ltd. Patent Litig., No. 2011 1199, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23495, *6 8 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 23, 2011). This was the first federal appeals court decision to discuss the issue in detail, and it provides support for the growing line of authority allowing prevailing parties to recover electronic discovery expenses. The Federal Circuit also recently issued a Model Order Regarding E Discovery in Patent Cases, which proposes several limits on electronic discovery and proposes that the cost of discovery beyond such limits would be borne by the requesting party. These actions by the Federal Circuit are consistent with an overall trend toward reforming electronic discovery and should encourage parties to be reasonable in conducting electronic discovery in patent infringement cases.