When Laidlaw International learned it was being investigated by a state grand jury, the Illinois company told employees who were potential witnesses and targets that they would be provided with counsel on the company's dime -- if they selected lawyers from a preapproved list. If they chose anyone else, it would be at their own expense. But the Division of Criminal Justice is asking the state Supreme Court to void those retainers on the ground that they create a conflict of interest.
September 17, 2009 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
When Laidlaw International Inc. learned in early 2007 that it was being investigated by a state grand jury, it quickly lawyered up.
The Illinois company’s in-house counsel told employees who were potential witnesses and targets that they would be provided with counsel on the company’s dime — provided they selected lawyers from a preapproved list. If they chose anyone else, it would be at their own expense.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
