[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in
connection with an investigation of potential FCPA violations in China on the part of Bio–
Rad (“the SEC Proceedings”). They were also the subject of a whistleblower complaint filed
by Wadler with the Department of Labor (“DOL”), which he brought under the 2013
Sarbanes–Oxley Act.
In the SEC Proceedings, Bio-Rad’s outside counsel, Davis Polk & Wardwell (“DPW”)
presented a 41-page Powerpoint presentation (“DPW Presentation” or “Presentation”) to
the SEC on behalf of the Audit Committee on June 27, 2013 addressing Wadler’s concerns
about suspected FCPA violations in China. The presentation begins with an “Investigative
Chronology” that provides a timeline of Wadler’s communications to the Audit Committee
and the investigations of both Steptoe & Johnson — which Bio-Rad hired in 2011 to
investigate potential FCPA violations worldwide — and DPW’s investigation of Wadler’s
allegations to the Audit Committee. The presentation addresses . . . these concerns in
detail, [concluding] that “[t]he issues identified by Mr. Wadler do not raise corruption
concerns. We have found no evidence that those issues are indicative of any violation — or
attempted violation — of the FCPA.”
[Bio-Rad provided a similar detailed defense to Wadler’s DOL retaliation complaint]. .
. .
At the October 7, 2016 Case Management Conference, Bio-Rad disclosed to the Court
and Wadler’s counsel, for the first time, that it intended to bring a motion to exclude on
the basis that Wadler would likely be unable to prove his case without using Bio-Rad’s
privileged or confidential information. . . .
Bio-Tech relies heavily on General Dynamics Corp. v. The Superior Court of San
Bernardino County, 876 P.2d 487 (Cal. 1994). . . .
The General Dynamics court recognized that some courts have concluded that the
threat to the attorney-client relationship posed by in-house counsel’s assertion of a
retaliatory discharge claims is so significant that such claims are not maintainable, citing as
a leading example Balla v. Gambro, Inc., 584 N.E.2d 104 (Ill. 1991). The California
Supreme Court, however, found . . . that in-house counsel should be afforded “a limited
remedy under defined circumstances,” . . . only where the attorney’s claim is “grounded in
explicit and unequivocal ethical norms embodied in the Rules of Professional
Responsibility and statutes” and can proceed only if the claim can be “fully established
without breaching the attorney-client privilege.” . . .
While General Dynamics addresses the limitations on in-house counsel attempting to
bring retaliatory discharge claims under California state law, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in
Van Asdale v. International Game Technology, 577 F.3d 989 (2009) suggests these
limitations do not apply under federal common law. In Van Asdale, the plaintiffs were
attorneys who were licensed in Illinois (and in no other state) and who were hired to work
as in-house counsel at a Nevada-based company. After they were terminated, they brought
claims for retaliatory termination under the whistleblower protections of Sarbanes–Oxley
and under state law. The defendant cited to the Balla decision in which the Illinois
Supreme Court held that in-house counsel cannot bring a claim for retaliatory discharge as
412