United States: Why The "Stock" Decision Is Wrong — And Why It Is Right

Last Updated: October 11 2016
Article by Ronald C. Minkoff

Like so many New York lawyers, I was happy when the First Department decided Stock v. Schnader Harrison, Segal & Lewis, LLP, 35 N.Y.S.3d 31 (1st Dept. 2016 (Stock). Indeed, I was probably happier: The First Department's decision, which applied the attorney-client privilege to cover all communications between a law firm's in-house counsel and firm attorneys, made my job as firm General Counsel a great deal easier. I had also written an article in this publication last November criticizing the trial court's ruling in Stock — a ruling the First Department overturned — and pointing out how out-of-step the court had been with recent rulings in other states that had upheld the law firm in-house privilege. See R. Minkoff, "Law Firm In-House Privilege Revisited," New York Legal Ethics Reporter (Feb. 2015), citing St. Simons Waterfront, LLC v. Hunter, Maclean, Exley & Dunn, P.C., 293 Ga. 419 (2013) (St. Simons) and RFF Family Partnership, L.P. v. Burns & Levinson, LLP, 465 Mass. 702 (2013) (RFF). Indeed, my firm signed on to the amicus brief which more than a dozen prominent New York law firms had submitted to the First Department supporting the law firm's position.

But in deciding Stock, the First Department gave the legal community more than it had bargained for. Though the holding is quite clear and the result sensible, the First Department's underlying logic should deeply trouble all New York lawyers and their clients. Why? Because in adopting the broadest possible view of the in-house law firm privilege, the Court played fast and loose with both basic fiduciary duty principles and the Rules of Professional Conduct. For the most part, this was unnecessary: The Court could have reached its result in a much simpler way.

Importance of the Facts

To understand my concerns, we have to start with the facts. The plaintiff, Keith Stock (Stock), retained defendant M. Christine Carty (Carty), a member of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis LLP (Schnader), to represent him in negotiating a severance agreement with his former employer, MasterCard International (MasterCard). According to the Complaint, both Stock and Carty were unaware that the severance would accelerate the exercise periods of certain stock options. The options expired, costing Stock $5 million.

When Stock learned of this, Schnader advised him to commence a court case against MasterCard and an arbitration against the administrator of the stock option plan in an effort to either reinstate the options or collect damages. As the arbitration hearing approached, the administrator sought to call Carty as a witness. Carty and the two Schnader attorneys handling the arbitrator sought legal advice from Schnader's in-house General Counsel, Wilbur Kipnes (Kipnes), apparently about their obligations under N.Y. Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 3.7, the "advocate-witness" rule. This resulted in the exchange of "about two dozen" emails (Kipnes Emails). The record indicates that Kipnes did not charge Stock for his time on this consultation; less clear is whether Carty and the other Schnader lawyers did.

Stock lost the arbitration and settled with MasterCard. With his losses still not recouped, Stock then sued Schnader and some of its attorneys, including Carty, for legal malpractice (among other claims). In response to discovery demands, Schnader listed the Kipnes Emails on its privilege log. Stock sought to compel their disclosure, claiming that Schnader could not invoke the attorney-client privilege to shield the Kipnes Emails from its own client.

Before going further, it is important to focus on what the Kipnes Emails were — or, more specifically, what they were not. They were not created after a dispute had broken out between Stock and Schnader; they were created while Schnader still represented Stock. They were not created to provide Schnader with advice on a potential malpractice claim; they were created to advise Schnader attorneys on their ethical obligations. They were not created in the context of an obvious conflict between Schnader and Stock. To the contrary, Stock and Schnader's interests at the time were completely parallel, as neither wanted Schnader disqualified because of the attorney-witness rule on the eve of the arbitration hearing.

In this way, Stock was very different from two earlier cases that had adopted the law firm in-house privilege, St. Simons and RFF. In those cases, the prior clients had already threatened or asserted malpractice claims against the law firms when the communications with in-house counsel took place. Thus, the differing interests between the client and the law firm had crystallized, and the need for the firm to consult with counsel to protect itself was clear. This was not true in Stock, where the communications took place while the firm and the client's interests were (at least arguably) still congruent, and before any overt claim of malpractice. (If there had been such a threat, Schnader could not have continued representing Stock in the arbitration without a conflict waiver. Neither the trial court nor the First Department indicated that Schnader requested or obtained such a waiver.)

Flawed Analysis of the 'Fiduciary Exception'

In seeking to obtain the Kipnes Emails, Stock relied on two principal arguments to circumvent the attorney-client privilege: (i) the "fiduciary exception" to the attorney-client privilege; and (b) the "current client" rule. The First Department, in rejecting both, undertook a detailed legal analysis. That analysis, however, raises more questions than it answers.

I will start, as the First Department did, with the fiduciary exception to the attorney client privilege. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, "[t]he rule [is] that when a trustee obtained legal advice to guide the administration of the trust, and not for the trustee's own defense in litigation, the beneficiaries were entitled to the production of documents related to that advice. [The attorney-client privilege does not apply here] because the advice was sought for the beneficiaries' benefit and was obtained at the beneficiaries' expense by using trust funds to pay the attorney's fees." United Sates v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S 162, 170–71 (2011) (Apache Nation).

The First Department began its analysis of the fiduciary exception by focusing on the seminal New York case on the subject, Hoopes v. Carotta, 142 A.D.2d 906 (3rd Dept. 1988), aff'd, 74 N.Y.2d 716 (1989) (Hoopes). That case involved a successful effort by trust beneficiaries/shareholders to obtain communications a trustee/corporate officer had had with his attorneys about his day-to-day work for the trust (during which he allegedly engaged in various forms of self-dealing). Adopting the case-by-case factual analysis required by another well-known fiduciary exception case, Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093, 1104 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 401 U.S. 974 (1971), the Hoopes court said the privilege did not apply because evidence "suggests that counsel acted on behalf of defendant both in his role as trustee and as the chief executive officer of the corporation," and thus the communications sought "related to prospective actions by defendant [in connection with his work for the trust], not advice on past actions." 142 A.D.2d at 910 (emphasis added). This information, the court held, belonged to the beneficiaries and the officer/trustees could not invoke the privilege to shield it from them. The Stock Court contrasted that with Beck v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. 218 A.D.2d 1, 17–18 (1st Dept. 1995), in which the First Department refused to apply the fiduciary exception to communications between a trustee and its lawyers because "plaintiff [beneficiaries] have been in an adversary relation with the Trustee since the late 1970s and the disclosure plaintiffs apparently seek ... [is] specifically relevant to the handling of the very issues the plaintiffs have been threatening to litigate." (Emphasis added.)

In Stock, then, the First Department set up a dichotomy between a situation where the fiduciary consulted lawyers on ongoing trust business (no privilege applies) and where the fiduciary consulted lawyers when already in an adversary situation with the beneficiaries (the privilege does apply). This dichotomy, however, turned out to be not as stark as orignally suggested: The First Department went on to find that even though the Schnader attorneys were still litigating Stock's case, and no clear adversity existed between attorneys and client, the fiduciary exception still did not apply. The attorneys, said the Court, "had their own reasons, apart from any duty owed to plaintiff, for seeking the legal guidance," as they faced potential discipline if they did not follow the rules, and the firm had its own interest that they comport with ethical obligations. Stock, 35 N.Y.S.3d at 39.

This decision all but ignored the First Department's own decision late last year in NAMA Holdings, LLC v. Greenberg, Traurig LLP, 133 A.D.3d 46, 56 (1st Dept. 2015), in which it had cited Garner to require a "communication-specific adversity inquiry" based on a multi-factor test, following an in camera review of all possibly privileged documents, before determining whether the fiduciary exception applies. The NAMA Holdings court held that "communications that are germane to the allegations of the Complaint, even those that occurred after adversity arose, would still be discoverable pursuant to the fiduciary exception (provided good cause exists)" — unless the documents themselves "objectively demonstrate an adverse relationship between the shareholder plaintiff and corporate management." Id. at 58–59.

In Stock, the Court eschewed such a specific inquiry, saying that it was unnecessary given the small number of emails involved and the limited context for which Kipnes's advice was sought. Stock, 35 N.Y.S.3d at 42 n.12. More importantly, the Court determined that the fiduciary exception did not apply merely because the fiduciaries seeking the advice — Carty and her colleagues — had some possible personal reason to seek legal advice. Stock, 35 N.Y.S.3d at 39. Given the Schnader attorneys' arguably dual reasons for consulting counsel — to protect Stock as well as themselves — this reasoning is hardly satisfactory. And it is especially unsatisfactory because the Court failed to address the key factor in any fiduciary exception inquiry: whether the beneficiary/client had become adverse to the trustee/lawyer, and whether the beneficiary/client knew it. That question was very much in doubt when the Kipnes Emails were written.

The Stock opinion is strangely silent on the subject, never making clear, for example, whether Stock had yet threatened to sue Schnader Harrison. As noted above, it is hard to imagine that had occurred, given that Schnader Harrison continued to represent Stock and the opinion does not mention a conflict waiver.

Who Is the 'Real Client'?

The Stock court's failure to conduct an adversity inquiry makes more glaring its reliance on another key case, the Delaware Chancery Court's ruling 40 years ago in Riggs Nat'l Bank of Washington v. Zimmer, 355 A.2d 709 (Del. Chanc. Ct. 1976). The Riggs court adopted the fiduciary exception to allow disclosure of allegedly privileged documents, holding that the documents in question were prepared for the trust beneficiaries' benefit:

"As a representative of the beneficiaries of the trust which he is administering, the trustee is not the real client in the sense that he is personally being served. And the beneficiaries are not simply incidental beneficiaries who chance to gain from the professional services rendered. The very intention of the communication is to aid the beneficiaries." Id. at 713–14 (emphasis added).

Calling Riggs "'the leading American case on the fiduciary exception'" [Stock, 35 N.Y.S.3d at 36, citing Apache Nation, 564 U.S. at 171], the First Department took the "real client" concept and ran with it — notwithstanding that Stock, in stark contrast to Riggs, involved lawyers asserting the privilege to withhold communications they had solely to protect themselves while still representing Stock. The First Department went so far as to conclude that "because the purpose of the consultation with Kipnes — for whose time ... [Stock] was not billed was to ensure that the attorneys and the firm understood and adhered to their ethical obligations as legal professionals, the attorneys and the firm, not plaintiff, were the 'real clients' in this consultation.'" Stock, 35 N.Y.S.3d at 40 (emphasis added.)

This must have come as a surprise to Stock (who was, after all, being represented by the firm in an ongoing arbitration), as it should to any ethically-aware lawyer. When a law firm represents a client, all its lawyers — not just the ones handling the case — have a duty of loyalty to that client. Rule 1.10(a) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs) make this clear, imputing the conflict of any one lawyer in the firm to all the lawyers in the firm. As a matter of logic, fiduciary law, and the RPCs, the law firm's "real client" at the relevant time was Stock. Kipnes could not, alone among Schnader's attorneys, claim not to be covered by the imputation rule (1.10) and set himself up as solely Carty and her colleagues' lawyer.

Significantly, the First Department borrowed this "real party in interest" analysis from RFF and St. Simons. See Stock Slip Op. at *7–9. But as noted, in both those cases there already was explicit adversity between the lawyers and the clients. RFF, 465 Mass. at 704 (client's lawyer sent "notice of claim" to law firm while law firm was still representing client); St. Simons, 293 Ga. 419 at 420 (client was publicly blaming lawyers for mistake). No such adversity existed in Stock.

The First Department claims that, despite the ongoing representation, any benefit Stock would have received from Kipnes' consultation "would have been indirect and incidental;" after all, the Court reasoned, if Kipnes had determined that Carty's role as witness put the firm in violation of Rule 3.7, he would have hurt Stock by advising the firm to withdraw. Stock, 35 N.Y.S.3d at 40. But in fact, Kipnes determined that the Rule was not being violated and Schnader did not have to withdraw. His advice was congruent with Stock's interests and directly benefitted him at the time. Moreover, as noted earlier, while the Court is very careful to note that Kipnes did not charge Stock for his time during the consultation, it says nothing about whether Carty and her colleagues did. If they did, it would strongly suggest that Stock's interests were those really being served.

In sum, the Stock Court's "fiduciary exception" analysis eschewed the Garner multi-factor test as well as the communication-specific adversity inquiry required by NAMA Holdings. Indeed, it came close to doing away with any adversity requirement at all, as long as the lawyers had their own ethical responsibilities to consider. As we will show, this is where the Stock Court actually got it right — and could have entirely avoided its tortured analysis of the fiduciary exception.

Current Client Exception

Before explaining our last comment, we must describe Stock's second argument to overcome the privilege: the "current client exception" to the attorney-client privilege. Stock, 35 N.Y.S.3d at 42. As the Court explained, "[a]pplicable specifically to attorneys (as opposed to fiduciaries in general), the current client exception holds that a law firm cannot invoke the attorney-client privilege to withhold from a client evidence of any internal communications within the firm relating to the client's representation, including consultations with the firm's in-house counsel, that occurred while the representation was ongoing." Id., citing, e.g., Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais [Suisse] S.A., 220 F. Supp. 2d 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) and In re Sunshine Sec. Litig, 130 F.R.D. 560 (E.D. Pa. 2002). According to the Court, the rationale behind this "appears to be that the law firm in-house counsel's advice to the other firm attorneys, on a matter as to which the firm's interests and those of a current outside client are not congruent, involves the firm in an impermissible simultaneous representation of conflicting interests." Id. This, in turn, is based on the imputation rule of RPC 1.10 — a rule which finally surfaced in this part of the Court's opinion, and which the Court attempted to discount.

Once again, the Stock Court's analysis was a little off-base. The Court relied on RFF, which in turn had relied on a scholarly article (since there was no favorable case law) that focused on "the construction of the term 'a client' in RPC rule 1.10(a)." Stock, 35 N.Y.S.3d at 45, citing RFF, 465 Mass. at 719–21, citing E. Chambliss, The Scope of the In-Firm Privilege, 80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1721, 1745–48 (2005). In essence, the Court stated that the imputation rule is intended to "'prohibit[] a law firm from representing two clients who are adverse to each other. A law firm can avoid that conflict by refusing to represent an adverse outside client. But where a law firm is already representing a client and that client threatens to bring a claim against the law firm, the potential conflict between the law firm's loyalty to the client and its loyalty to itself cannot be avoided and must instead be addressed. ... Applying the rule of imputation in such circumstances therefore would not avoid conflicting loyalties or prevent disloyalty; it would simply prevent or delay a law firm from seeking the expertise and advice of in-house counsel in deciding what to do where there is a potential conflict.'" Id. at 45–46 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

This logic is flawed for several reasons. First, this analysis harkens back to the "real client" discussion in Riggs — an analysis which, as we have shown, the imputation rule directly refutes. Second, to the extent a client's complaint creates a personal interest conflict for lawyers at the firm under RPC 1.7 (finding a conflict where there is "a significant risk that the lawyer's professional judgment on behalf of a client will be adversely affected by the lawyer's own financial, business, property or other personal interests"), that conflict is still imputed to all lawyers at the firm under RPC 1.10(a); New York, unlike the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRs), does not make an exception for imputation of such conflicts. Compare RPC 1.10(a) with MR 1.10(a)(1) (exempting personal interest conflicts from imputation rule). In many situations — for example, all of a firm's partners conflicted out of representing a known polluter because one of the partners is a Board member of the Sierra Club — that creates results far more absurd than what the Stock Court posited here, where the law firm could be acting adversely to the current client without the client even being aware of the problem. Third, if expediency for the law firm governed conflicts law, we would have a broad screening rule in New York, allowing lawyers to avoid conflicts simply by establishing "ethical walls" — whether the client likes it or not. Though the Model Rules permit such screening, New York has never adopted it. Compare MR 1.10(b) with N.Y. RPC 1.10(a). Conflicts rules are intended to protect clients from disloyalty, not to make lawyers' jobs easier or support the role of in-house counsel.

But the answer to the "current client" exception — and indeed to the fiduciary exception — can be found in something much more fundamental: the client's expectation when it hires a professional governed by a set of ethical rules. The client must be deemed to expect that the lawyer will act consistently with his or her ethical obligations, whether doing so comports with the client's interests or not. As the Stock Court put it:

"The protection afforded by the attorney-client privilege encourages lawyers to seek advice concerning their ethical responsibilities and potential liabilities in a timely manner so as to minimize any damage to the client from any conflict or error. Much of this benefit — to both lawyers and clients — would be lost if the attorney-client privilege could be invoked by a lawyer who sought legal advice to protect his or her own interests only for consultations that took place after the lawyer or the client had openly taken a position adverse to each other." Stock, 35 N.Y.S.3d at 40.

It then quoted RFF to point out that "'[s]oliciting ... advice [concerning a conflict], whether from an in-house counsel at the law firm or from an attorney at another law firm, is not in and of itself adverse to the client, and doing so ultimately may benefit the client. Ultimately, it is usually in the interests both of the attorney seeking advice of the client that the ethical issues be examined by a competent advisor who has been fully informed of all relevant facts, with none withheld out of fear that the consultation may not remain private.'" Id., citing RFF, 465 Mass. at 711.

In other words, when hiring a lawyer, the client understands it is getting the entire package that comes with a professional who must abide by ethical rules. To that extent, the client should have no expectation that it would have access to its lawyer's communications with an attorney designed to comport with those rules, whether that attorney is an outside lawyer or an in-house lawyer. Nor should the client have any expectation that the lawyer's duties to the client will trump the lawyer's obligations to comply with ethical obligations. In this way, as the Stock court itself found, both the "fiduciary exception" and the "current client exception" fall by the wayside. See id. at 40–41 ("fiduciary exception" does not apply because lawyers' need to seek advice to comply with their ethical obligations trumps client's right to obtain those communications) and 44–45 ("current client exception" does not apply because "'a law firm's consideration of its own legal and ethical obligations in connection with its representation of one or more clients cannot be said to implicate a differing interest that will adversely affect the lawyer's exercise of professional judgment nor the loyalty due a client within the meaning of the [Rules]"), citing NYSBA Op. 789 (2005).

In this way, the Court's opinion comported with Upjohn Co. v. U.S., 449 U.S. 383 (1981), where the U.S. Supreme Court established a sweeping corporate attorney-client privilege. The Supreme Court's analysis was very pragmatic, and focused on the needs of the corporation ("Information, not available from upper-echelon management, was needed to supply a basis for legal advice concerning compliance with securities and tax laws, foreign laws, currency regulations, duties to shareholders, and potential litigation. ..."), the expectations of those receiving the advice ("the employees themselves were sufficiently aware they were being questioned in order that the corporation could obtain legal advice") and the public importance of ensuring corporate compliance with the law.

The Stock Court did not have to dig any deeper than the Supreme Court did to reach its result. And that result is certainly the right one: as Stock also points out, it encourages lawyers to seek the advice they need more quickly from an in-house lawyer, rather than going through the cumbersome process of locating and hiring outside counsel each time an ethical problem arises. Stock, 35 N.Y.S.3d at 45–46. By making a bright-line, broad rule assuring confidentiality, the Court encouraged lawyers to be candid with their firm's General Counsel, and therefore ensured they would obtain advice swiftly and efficiently — a benefit to both the lawyers and their clients.

But the Stock Court did go further, eschewing the "good cause" analysis required under Garner, introducing the dangerous concept of the "real client", and providing its novel interpretation of the imputation rule. As a result, the First Department sowed more confusion than it needed to in order to reach the correct result. While we understand that Stock will not be further appealed, we hope that, when the Court of Appeals finally gets around to addressing this issue, it will take a simpler, more practical approach.

Originally published by the New York Legal Ethics Reporter

www.fkks.com

This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Ronald C. Minkoff
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions