In the ongoing legal battle over the alleged theft of American trade secrets by Chinese telecom giant Huawei, one curious aspect is the lack of charges filed against any individual Huawei employees. On February 28, Huawei pled not guilty to charges of trade secret theft in federal court in Washington. This has been one of the most publicized trade secret cases since the DOJ announced the China Initiative in November 2018, prioritizing the quick and effective identification and prosecution of trade secret cases related to alleged Chinese theft of American intellectual property. In January, Huawei was indicted for theft of trade secrets conspiracy, attempted theft of trade secrets, seven counts of wire fraud, and one count of obstruction of justice. The government alleges that Huawei engineers stole information from T-Mobile related to its cell phone testing robot, “Tappy.” The indictment alleges that despite signing non-disclosure agreements with T-Mobile, Huawei engineers took measurements of the robot and even stole a part of the robot for the benefit of Huawei. It also alleges that Huawei offered bonuses to employees who succeeded in stealing confidential information from other companies.
Continue Reading

The attorney-client privilege, which prohibits the compelled disclosure of confidential communications between an attorney and their client, is enshrined in common law and statutory codes across the country. See, e.g., Cal. Evid. Code § 950 et seq.; Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981) (the fundamental purpose of the attorney-client privilege “is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice”).

The long-standing recognition of this privilege reflects the policy decision that the encouragement of candor between lawyers and clients outweighs probative and evidentiary value of those frank communications to the administration of justice.

But what happens when a different policy choice is made?
Continue Reading

It always comes when you least expect it – a government inquiry to investigate your business. While it may instill a sense of panic, there are steps you can take to make sure you’re in the best position possible when the investigation begins.

This blog series developed by Chrysty Esperanza, Litigation Counsel at Square, Inc., will address this main question: When you receive a subpoena, CID, or informal request from the government, how should you respond?


Cooperation and Voluntary Disclosure Issues – Benefits + Risks of Self Reporting

The Foreign Corrupt Policies Act (FCPA) unit at the DOJ recently enacted its Corporate Enforcement Policy. According to the policy, if a company self-reports an FCPA violation and cooperates fully and timely, there is a presumption of declination of prosecution.  However, there is an exception – the presumption will not apply if there are aggravating circumstances that warrant a criminal investigation,
Continue Reading

It always comes when you least expect it – a government inquiry to investigate your business. While it may instill a sense of panic, there are steps you can take to make sure you’re in the best position possible when the investigation begins.

This blog series by Chrysty Esperanza, Litigation Counsel at Square, Inc., will address this main question: When you receive a subpoena, CID, or informal request from the government, how should you respond?


When Civil and Criminal Investigations Collide

Civil and criminal investigations are not as separate as you may think, and it is quite possible they may blend together.  While an internal investigation may be launched in response to a civil request from a government agency, the degree of cooperation between civil and criminal government agencies means an open civil investigation can easily trigger a criminal inquiry. When parallel civil and criminal investigations occur jointly, the government agencies may share the work and information from their respective investigations.  For example, a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will always note that information discovered during the investigation can be shared with multiple agencies, like the Department of Justice (DOJ). 
Continue Reading

It always comes when you least expect it – a government inquiry to investigate your business. While it may instill a sense of panic, there are steps you can take to make sure you’re in the best position possible when the investigation begins.

This blog series developed by Chrysty Esperanza, Litigation Counsel at Square, Inc., will address this main question: When you receive a subpoena, CID, or informal request from the government, how should you respond?


How do you find the right lawyer to conduct an internal investigation?

When an issue arises that requires an internal investigation, determining who handles the investigation may have a significant impact on the investigation itself. There are basically two options:  use in-house resources or hire outside counsel.  Usually, it is preferable to hire outside counsel, especially where the issues being investigated are serious or involve concerns as to management integrity.  Doing so conveys to the government that you are taking the investigation seriously.  Engaging outside counsel also provides more credibility where senior management are being asked to provide information, and demonstrates your appreciation and understanding of the complexity of the investigation.  It also conveys to senior management internally the seriousness of the matter.  In addition, outside counsel can provide a fresh and objective perspective on your internal practices and may even provide an opportunity to benchmark your business with industry standards and best practices of other companies.
Continue Reading