Stay or Go? When a Crisis Approaches, a General Counsel's Next Move Is Complicated
Tesla's former general counsel Dane Butswinkas left the company a day after chief executive officer Elon Musk posted tweets irking the SEC—again. When a company's headed toward legal trouble, GCs have a choice: stay and try to save the ship, or get off before it sinks.
February 26, 2019 at 05:26 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission called for Tesla Inc.'s chief executive officer, Elon Musk, to be held in contempt of court Monday, over tweets Musk posted one day before the company's general counsel, Dane Butswinkas, announced his departure.
Butswinkas served as Tesla's general counsel for just two months. He did not immediately respond to request for comment on the reason for his departure.
For GCs, an impending legal crisis can be a career-turning point—stay or go?
When it comes to that decision, David Taylor, the founder of crisis management firm Taylor Strategic and former GC and CEO of Theranos Inc., said there “isn't any one size fits all” solution. The GC's priorities should be what's best for the company and its shareholders, he said.
“In my own case, those really were the keys. I felt like I was there in order to help. I felt I still could help, and I felt like others thought I was helping. So given all those factors, it really answered the question,” Taylor said. “I can see in different cases, where it might not feel that way … if a general counsel felt he or she couldn't help, or others in the room didn't think he or she was helping, that would affect the decision.”
If a general counsel feels they're being helpful—communicating effectively, professionally and respectfully—they should consider staying on, Taylor said. In-house leaders should also consider who would replace them and whether their successor is equipped to handle the situation. If the GC's advice is consistently ignored, Taylor said it might be time to move on.
Steve John, founder of legal recruiting firm Steven John & Associates, said that may be the case with Tesla's GC change. Musk, a tech founder with somewhat of a cult following, has gotten into trouble with the SEC over tweets in the past. He's also preferred to pick lawyers close to him as Tesla's GC.
Butswinkas' predecessor Todd Maron served as Musk's divorce attorney before landing the in-house role. New GC Jonathan Chang has been with the company for eight years. But Butswinkas joined as an outsider from Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C.
“At some point, as an attorney, you have to make a judgement call on how much you're willing to put yourself in, when there are real professional consequences for lawyers who get swept up in crises,” John said. “You can lose your license. You can lose credibility among your peers. And when you return to a more rational place, you return with some damage if you didn't get out soon enough.”
Jack Tanner, a director at Fairfield and Woods who focuses on in-house ethics, said that in most U.S. states, GCs advising a client to break the law or assisting a client in breaking the law is an ethics violation. But most state's ethics rules don't require GCs to resign from a company engaging in unlawful action. It's a “business, personal decision for the in-house lawyer” to stay or go, and less a question of ethics, he said, so long as they're offering sound legal advice.
Many in-house leaders do choose to stay on. In November, Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch announced he'd stay on despite earlier promises to leave by 2019, following a year of legal and reputation troubles. Uber's former chief legal officer Salle Yoo stuck with the company through a series of lawsuits and negative press.
John said GCs who manage a crisis well can turn a challenge into a chance to grow their skills as a lawyer and business partner.
“These are golden opportunities, golden experiences, that really form general counsel and make them better, stronger, in their roles and in their future work,” John said.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCEOs Want Data-Based Risk Management; GCs Lack the Tech to Do So.
UnitedLex Fishes 5 New Hires From Big Four Talent Pool
COVID-19, Remote Work and Cybersecurity Threats: 7 Pointers for In-House Counsel
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 2The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 3Antitrust Class Actions Against CVS, Other Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Piling Up
- 4Judge Grinds NY's Cannabis Licensing Regime to a Halt Again
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Barclay Damon; VLJ; Barnes & Thornburg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250