Penetrating the Attorney-Client Privilege – An Aggressive Trend in the Wake of Corporate Scandals

The attorney-client privilege is an essential element of any system of justice. It protects communication between attorneys and their clients from compelled disclosure. The crime-fraud exception removes this attorney-client privilege for communications made in furtherance of a crime or fraud. Therefore, the confidentiality afforded to attorney-client communications does not extend to interactions for the purpose of committing a crime or fraud.

There are notable cases such as United States v. Richard Nixon, where attorneys find themselves giving evidence against their clients. In the Watergate scandal, President Nixon’s assertion of executive privilege was overridden because of potential criminal activity. In a landmark Supreme Court decision, Justice Warren Burger wrote:

“…when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.”

When Attorney-Client Privilege Yields to Crime-Fraud Exception?

U.S. Federal courts use a two-party test to decide whether to apply the crime-fraud exception. The two parts of the test are:

1. First, it must be established that the client was engaged in or planning criminal or fraudulent conduct when the advice of counsel was sought or committed a crime or fraud after receiving the benefit of counsel’s advice.
2. If the first part of the test is established then, there must be a showing that the attorney’s assistance was obtained in furtherance of the criminal or fraudulent activity or was closely related to it.

If both parts of the test are satisfied, the court would allow intrusion into the attorney and client interaction and the attorney work product.

A crime or fraud does have to be proven for the exception to be invoked. All that is needed is probable cause. Evidence that establishes a reasonable basis to suspect that the client was committing or intending to commit a crime or fraud, and that the attorney-client communication was used in furtherance of that crime or fraud is enough. Courts may conduct an in-camera review of the allegedly privileged materials to determine whether the exception applies.

President Donald Trump had to stare down his long-time attorney, Michael Cohen, who became a lead witness in the Stormy Daniels hush-money trial. New York prosecutors asserted that they had probable cause to believe that President Trump used the services of his attorney to commit crimes.

Crime-Fraud Exception Not Restricted to Criminal Conduct

You could tell from the name crime-fraud that the principle is not limited to crimes. A court or prosecutor does not have to search the penal code to find a specific crime you are committing, before applying the crime-fraud exception. Court have looked beyond mere crimes to pierce the attorney and client privilege. This is so because fraudulent conduct may be civil and criminal. It on this front that the crime-fraud exception is being used to chip away at the attorney and client privilege.

If you are in a position of trust and confidence and seek legal advice to breach your fiduciary duty, the crime-fraud exception maybe applied even if no crime is being committed. This is because the breach of a fiduciary duty may constitute civil fraud.

Courts have gone further to apply the crime-fraud exception in circumstances where there is tortious interference with contract. Tortious interference with contract is where you intentionally disrupt the contractual relationship between two parties.

You should not assume that every interaction with an attorney will be protected by the attorney-client privilege. Instead, you and your attorney should be aware of the kinds of interaction that may pierce the veil of secrecy.

The crime-fraud exception applies regardless of whether the attorney was aware of the client’s criminal or fraudulent intentions. The focus is on the client’s intent to misuse the attorney’s services to further a crime or fraud. If the client sought legal advice to explore the legality of a proposed course of conduct, the privilege remains intact. However, if the client intended to use the attorney’s advice to perpetrate or conceal a crime or fraud, the privilege is forfeited.

Why C-Suite Executives Should be on High Alert

The invoking of the crime-fraud exception has surged after corporate scandals became prevalent. As corporate scandals spark public outcry, there has been a notable rise in the invocation of the crime-fraud exception prosecutors. This has contributed to growing effort to pierce attorney-client privilege in cases where legal advice may have been used to further criminal or fraudulent activities.

Regulators and prosecutors are also broadening the scope of application of the crime-fraud exception. Recent analyses suggest that the scope of the crime-fraud exception has expanded. Courts have applied the exception not only to clear-cut cases of crime or fraud but also to situations involving breaches of fiduciary duty and other wrongful conduct. This broader interpretation indicates a more frequent application in diverse legal contexts.

All professionals and entrepreneurs should note the trend by prosecutors to aggressively use the crime-fraud exception to penetrate the attorney and client privilege. It could impact you, particularly if you are in arenas such as real estate, trust and estates, asset management, information technology and cyber security.

He thought the attorney client privilege would be an impenetrable moat for his hush-money secrets until a federal court ordered his lawyers to disclose his secrets to a grand jury. He is the CEO of a publicly traded company. His name is under seal and will be referred to here as CEO Doe as grand jury proceedings continue.

CEO Doe didn’t go down without a fight. He asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to quash the subpoenas served on his lawyer – Lawyer Doe and his law firm. However, on February 7, 2025, the Court of Appeals ruled that documents and messages CEO Doe shared with his attorneys who negotiated hush-money agreements to quiet sexual assault accusations, must be disclosed to the grand jury.

The attorney client privilege usually shields exchanges between lawyers and their clients from disclosure to third parties. However, in this instance, the New York based appellate court determined that the crime-fraud exception defeats the attorney client privilege. This is a reminder that not every attorney work product or confidential communication is protected.

A grand jury is investigating whether CEO Doe engaged in criminal activity to conceal his alleged sexual misconduct. You may be wondering how CEO Doe and Lawyer Doe found themselves in this predicament? It is not that the hush-money agreements are illegal. The way in which the CEO and his lawyers handled the negotiations, and the resulting agreements is what puts them in criminal jeopardy.

Publicly traded companies must have internal accounting controls. CEO Doe’s company requires major legal contracts to be reviewed by its in-house legal department, as part of internal accounting controls. CEO Doe publicly touted this safeguard to illustrate how rigorous the Company’s internal controls are to lure investors. However, when it came to the hush-money agreements that are considered major legal contracts, he dealt with outside lawyers and kept the in-house legal department in the dark. This violation of the internal audit controls is what is being probed by a grand jury as federal crimes.

Federal prosecutors contend that the CEO structured his relationship with his outside lawyers to circumvent the Company’s internal controls. In order words, he used the services of his lawyers to commit or conceal a crime. When they relied on the attorney client privilege as a shield, CEO Doe and Lawyer Doe overlooked the fact that there is a crime-fraud exception to the attorney and client privilege.

Why the Attorney Client Privilege is Defeated by the Crime-Fraud Exemption

The crime-fraud exception is a legal principle that removes the protection of attorney-client privilege for communications made in furtherance of a crime or fraud. This exception ensures that the confidentiality afforded to attorney-client communications does not extend to those made for the purpose of obtaining advice or assistance in committing a crime or fraud.

To apply the crime-fraud exception, courts generally use a two-part test. First, there must be an initial showing that the clients engaged in or were planning criminal or fraudulent conduct when they sought the advice of counsel, or that they committed a crime or fraud after receiving the benefit of counsel’s advice. Second, prosecutors must establish that the attorney’s assistance was obtained in furtherance of the criminal or fraudulent activity or was closely related to it.

The Court of Appeals found that the government established both elements in this case. There was probable cause to believe CEO Doe intentionally used his lawyer’s services to circumvent the legal contracts control. The CEO was aware of the control but took steps to conceal the agreements from the company’s legal department, including using external counsel and communicating via text message. The district court reasonably concluded these actions were intended to keep the company “in the dark” about the agreements.

A Hush-Money Lesson for Corporate Executives and Lawyers

If corporate executives want to protect their communication with outside counsel from disclosure, they must ensure that they comply with the Company’s internal accounting controls. For instance, in this case, one of the internal controls is that major contracts be reviewed by the Company’s legal department. Instead of submitting the contract of review by the in-house legal department, the CEO Doe hid the hush-money agreements from the in-house lawyers.

The concealment was material because the hush-money agreements were drafted in a manner that exposed the Company to liability. Though the CEO paid the hush money from his own funds, the court found that the agreement had ramifications for the Company.

Lawyers who provide legal services to officers of public companies must enquire what internal controls the company has that are applicable to the services they provide. If Lawyer Doe had used an intake procedure with proper due diligence, he would have been aware of the major contracts reporting requirement of the Company.

Once the lawyers are aware of the requirement for review by the in-house legal department, they had two choices. They could have complied with the review requirement to preserve their client’s confidentiality. Providing the hush-money agreements to the Company’s legal department would have removed the probability of fraud from the transaction. This would have protected other attorney work products and confidential communications.

If the client indicated a desire not to submit the agreement to the Company’s legal department, then the lawyers should have structured the agreement to evade that requirement.

It is important to note that the crime-fraud exception applies regardless of whether the attorney is aware of a client’s criminal or fraudulent intention. The focus is on the client’s intent to misuse the attorney’s services to further a crime or fraud. If the client sought legal advice to explore the legality of a proposed course of conduct, the privilege remains intact. However, if the client intended to use the attorney’s advice to perpetrate or conceal a crime or fraud, the privilege is forfeited.

Could Lawyer Doe be Liable for the Loss of the Attorney and Client Privilege?

The answer is yes. Lawyers have a duty to take necessary steps to protect the confidentiality of their clients. Lawyers also have a duty to engage in due diligence to acquaint themselves of required actions to protect their clients’ confidential communications. If a necessary step for that protection entails forwarding a major contract to the legal department of the Company, failure to do so could give rise to liability.

Further, Lawyer Doe should have documented his advice to his client about necessary actions the client must take. If the client declines to follow the advice that too should be documented.

If you are handling a major legal contract for a publicly traded company or one of its officers, you be aware of the Company’s internal accounting controls. In this case the Lawyer Doe was also the long-term lawyer for the Company. Therefore, he ought to be aware of the internal audit controls of the Company.

The failure to follow the internal accounting controls procedures could therefore expose Lawyer Doe to civil and criminal liability. Let’s wait to see how this one turns out.

Claiming he betrayed his country for money, federal prosecutors are asking that a sentence of life imprisonment be imposed on Prakazrel “Pras” Michel, a founding member of the Grammy Award-winning hip-hop group, the Fugees. The renowned rapper frowns at the prospect of spending the rest of his life behind bars, calling the government’s proposed life sentence “absurd” and “eye-watering”. In his opposing Sentencing Memorandum, he tells the federal judge who will sentence him, he is no Bernie Madoff.

Michel has spent most of his life rapping his way into the hearts and admiration of scores of fans with infectious beats and tantalizing lyrics. His success with the Fugees and as a solo artist, is immense but a jury has brought him to his knees, finding him guilty of schemes tied to Malaysian financier Jho Low.

Prosecutors accused Michel of illegally funneling millions of dollars from Low into former President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign and later lobbying the Trump administration on behalf of China, without registering as a foreign agent. Michel allegedly made roughly $100 million from his partnership with Low from June 2012 to January 2018, prosecutors say. However, he is arguing that he is convicted of victimless crimes.

Legal Standards/Rules

Michel and federal prosecutors are worlds apart on what should be an appropriate sentence for the offenses he is convicted of. Michel contends that he ought to serve about three years in prison while prosecutors contend that he belongs behind bars for the rest of his life.

Federal sentencing guidelines require that district courts determine a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of retribution, deterrence, incapacity, and rehabilitation. Judges must use the advisory Guidelines as a meaningful benchmark throughout the sentencing process. The issue therefore is whether the sentence proposed by the government is “sufficient and not greater than necessary” to achieve sentencing purposes.

To satisfy its burden, the government is applying the fraud-loss guidelines, which under the United States Sentencing Guidelines is concerned with loss caused by fraudulent activities. It is used to enhance the severity of punishment for a person convicted of fraud. Prosecutors are also contending that sentences for a dozen offenses Michel is convicted of, should run consecutively. However, #PrasMichel is contending that no fraud was committed and no loss suffered.

Victimless Crime or Betrayed Countries for Money?

“No one was deprived of any money or property. The banks did not lose money. The U.S. Government did not lose money. No one was actually harmed,” Michel said in an attempt to rebuff prosecutors’ application of the fraud-loss guidelines to his crimes.

However, federal prosecutors are charging that the United States government was Michel’s victim. Moreover, they contend that through his crimes, Michel has seriously harmed the United States. “He and his co-conspirators targeted the highest levels of American government”, prosecutors contend.

Michel is arguing that the government’s proposed life sentence is typically reserved for terrorists and heads of drug cartels. The definition of “victim” under the Sentencing Guidelines requires actual pecuniary harm. If no such harm occurred, the fraud-loss guidelines may not be applicable. Additionally, previous cases have shown that adjustments were denied when no injury or loss was suffered by the victims.

Whether a sentence of three year or life imprisonment adequately reflects the seriousness of the offenses Michel has been convicted is now up to a federal judge to decide. Though the Sentencing Guidelines will be considered, the judge is not bound by it.

COVID-19 is no longer the Grinch that is disrupting commercial and everyday life but arising from it ruins are important lessons for the future. A stark reality from the lock down of borders and shuttering of businesses is contractual obligations could not have been fulfilled. Therefore, the life of countless contracts ended prematurely, creating a crisis of contracts. Resurrected from the commercial ruins is force majeure, an often-forgotten doctrine.

Force majeure is an event, usually beyond the reasonable control of a contractual party, that prevents that party from performing its contractual obligations. The risk that an event would prevent performance of contractual obligations, is usually insured or assumed by a contracting party. However, force majeure nullifies the risk and relieves a contracting party from the burden of performance when specified events occur.

Force majeure clauses limit damages where the reasonable expectations of the parties and the performance of the contract have been frustrated by circumstances beyond the control of the parties

COVID-19 set off what the New York Supreme Court calls, a flood of contract termination cases. From major brands such as GAP, Cole Haan and Hugo Boss, to individuals who canceled weddings and other events or couldn’t pay rent, were caught up in breach of contract disputes. Many turned to the force majeure clauses in their contract for shelter. Painfully, those force majeure provisions did not provide adequate protection from COVID-19 disruptions. The lesson? Pandemic related force majeure cases may not succeed if careful consideration is not given when the contract is formed.

When does Force Majeure Apply in a Pandemic?

In common law jurisdictions, force majeure is a creature of contract. It is what the contract says it is. For it to be invoked, force majeure must be a termination clause specifically stated in the contract. The contract could either provide for force majeure or expressly exclude its application. As a creature of contract, the contours of force majeure are set out within the agreement. The contours define the application, effect, and scope of force majeure for each contract.

The tragedy for many businesses is that the contours of business contracts do not adequately provide for pandemic related conditions as force majeure events. The deficiency is particularly pronounced in commercial leases. A series of cases that were decided in New York, reveal that the risk of pandemic related hardship is assumed by commercial tenants.

Commercial leases treat the obligation to pay rent as an exception to force majeure relief. This is the effect of a poorly drafted clause that protects commercial landlords while leaving commercial tenants to the mercy of a pandemic. Consequently, even when a commercial landlord is unable to provide access to commercial premises due to COVID-19 measures, commercial tenants may still be obligated to pay rent.

This oversight ignored a trend that that has been developing over two decades. The chart to the right shows a steady increase of force majeure cases decided by US courts from 2002 through 2021. It establishes a relationship between pandemics and spikes in force majeure cases decided by US Courts. The first spike in 2010 – 2013, coincided with the reemergence of the H1N1 pandemic. Another spike in 2016-2017 coincided with Ebola. However, the most drastic increase occurred in 2020-2021 during COVID-19.

Catch-all Force Majeure Provision May Not Work in a Pandemic?

A catch-all force majeure provision doesn’t work the same way in common law jurisdictions as in civil jurisdictions. In civil law jurisdictions, a catch-all force majeure provision covers unforeseen circumstances, not specifically stated in the contract. However, in common law jurisdictions, a catch-all force majeure clause is restricted to the specific conditions listed in the contract.

“When a force majeure clause contains a catch all phrase along with specified events, the precept of ejusdem generis is used to limit general words to events that are of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned.”

Broad catch-all provisions are interpreted as excluding things that are not of the same character or class as the specific events mentioned. So, general words would not be given an expansive meaning.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Supply Chains and the Implication for Business Contracts

Decades of reliance on the just-in-time management model, produced nearsighted business contracts. Just-in-time is a management system in which a business maintains a lean inventory system that is replenished just-in-time to satisfy demand. It is like walking a tight rope. To succeed, supplies must be readily available. Just-in-time works well in a world of plenty where shortages are short-lived. A pandemic changes this reality, creating a whole new world – one characterized by long-term shortages. It paralyzes industries and eliminates substitutes that may be relied on in times of hardship. The new market conditions are neither contemplated nor adequately provided for in business contracts.

COVID-19 has taught us that a pandemic could create acute demand and supply problems. Instead of the equilibrium that comes from predictive models, demand and supply are out of sync. That becomes a problem when the market’s resistance to shocks is compromised, inhibiting its ability to self-correct. So, in a pandemic world, the termination of contracts may be vital to the survival of a business. If that option is not available, the business may go under.

Why You Need Adequate Force Majeure Clauses to Survive a Pandemic

The other legal doctrines, namely frustration of purpose and impossibility, are not good substitutes for force majeure in a pandemic.

Frustration of purpose discharges a party’s duties to perform under a contract where a wholly unforeseeable event renders the contract valueless to one party. “Impossibility is a defense to a breach of contract when performance is objectively impossible because of an unanticipated event that could not have been foreseen or guarded against in the contract .”

Why Frustration of Purpose is Not Suited for Pandemics

A pandemic usually results in economic hardship because of changes in market conditions. For example, lockdowns and vaccine mandate may reduce sales or operational capacity. However, economic hardship does not excuse performance of contractual obligations. The common law considers economic hardship as a risk assumed by contracting parties. Therefore, for frustration of purpose to apply, you must establish that the basis of the contract was frustrated. So, the fact that a pandemic may cause a business to operate at a loss is not sufficient to terminate a contract based on frustration of purpose.

Further, you must also establish that the event that frustrated the purpose of the contract was disastrous and wholly unforeseen. While lockdowns that closes a business may satisfy this requirement, partial closure may not. So, restaurants operating at 340% capacity, may not rely on frustration of purpose to terminate contracts.

Why the Doctrine of Impossibility is Not Suited for Pandemics?

Impossibility only relieves performance of contractual obligations that are “impossible” to perform. So, an event that makes contractual obligations burdensome or unprofitable is not enough to invoke the doctrine of “impossibility”. This is precisely what happens in a post-pandemic world – obligations are burdensome or unprofitable. On the supply side, there may be shortages of necessary inputs for goods and services to be provided. On the demand side, changes in demand may render a profitable enterprise unprofitable. Nevertheless, this turn in fortune is considered risk a party assumes.

Impossibility is applied narrowly in New York. The Court of Appeals determined that it should only be invoked in extreme circumstances. This is due to the overarching principle in contract law that risks are allocated to parties to a contract.

Practical Issues for the Future

COVID-19 has taught us that existing force majeure clauses are not adequate to protect businesses in times of a pandemic. Common law doctrines such as frustration of purpose and impossibility are not adequate substitutes for force majeure. So, resilience in the future requires rethinking business contracts to directly address potential disruption from pandemics. Here are some practical steps that could be taken:

1. At the time of formation of the contract, consider the likely impact of a pandemic. Going forward, pandemics may no longer be considered unforeseeable. Its impact on contractual obligations must therefore be provided for in the contract.
2. Create buffers for weak links in the supply chain. To adequately provide for pandemic related disruption, businesses would need to examine each link in their supply chain and identify links that are prone to disruption.
3. Use lessons from COVID-19 to construct dispute resolution mechanism in future contracts. Incorporate lessons from current negotiated solutions to inability to perform into future contracts.
4. Suspension of the contract. In instead of termination, you could provide for suspension of specific obligations in specified circumstances.

By: Vivian M. Williams, Esq.

NEW YORK, NY, August 04, 2023 /24-7PressRelease/ — Vivian M. Williams, Esq., has been included in Marquis Who’s Who. As in all Marquis Who’s Who biographical volumes, individuals profiled are selected on the basis of current reference value. Factors such as position, noteworthy accomplishments, visibility, and prominence in a field are all taken into account during the selection process.

He is also the President of VMW Law – a law firm with divisions in the United States and the Caribbean, and The Williams Firm – a boutique real estate firm in New York City.

Leveraging more than two decades of excellence in law, economics, business and crisis management, Dr. Williams has earned distinction as an adjunct professor of business at the Baruch College Zicklin School of Business. Since 2022, he has been channeling decades of real-world experience and academic rigor to mold future business leaders in the Department of International Business at Baruch College.

Outside of his teaching efforts with Baruch College, Dr. Williams is the President of VMW Law – a law firm with divisions in the United States and the Caribbean, and The Williams Firm – a boutique real estate firm in New York City. In his private practice, Dr. Williams uses a unique blend of law, business, and communications competencies to help corporations and entrepreneurs navigate legal and functional issues. He has decades of litigation and transactional experience, combined with competencies in predictive analysis. He offers a variety of services to help individuals and entities minimize risk and optimize opportunities in business ventures.

Dr. Williams hails from the small town of New Amsterdam in his native Guyana, South America. He started his professional life as a schoolteacher after completing teacher training at Cyril Potter College of Education in Guyana. He pursued undergraduate studies at the University of Guyana before migrating to the United States. Following these achievements, he attained a Master of Laws in global antitrust law and economics from George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School and Master of Laws in intellectual property and media law from the Cardozo School of Law. He is also a graduate of the George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management where he attained a Master of Strategic Public Relations. This was followed by an MBA from TRIUM – a top ranked global program jointly administered by NYU Stern School of Business, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and HEC (Paris). He has capped off his academic achievements with a Doctorate in Business Administration from Baruch College.

Sitting at the intersection of law, economics, and public policy, Dr. Williams’ scholarship focuses on the role of law and institutional structures in remedying or perpetuating socioeconomic disparities and injustices. Key areas of his practice are cross-border mergers and acquisitions, intellectual property law, antitrust, corporate reorganization, crisis management and appellate advocacy.

About Marquis Who’s Who®:
Since 1899, when A. N. Marquis printed the First Edition of Who’s Who in America®, Marquis Who’s Who® has chronicled the lives of the most accomplished individuals and innovators from every significant field of endeavor, including politics, business, medicine, law, education, art, religion and entertainment. Marquis celebrates its 125th anniversary in 2023, and Who’s Who in America® remains an essential biographical source for thousands of researchers, journalists, librarians and executive search firms around the world. Marquis® publications may be visited at the official Marquis Who’s Who® website at www.marquiswhoswho.com.

One of the major responsibilities of a Human Resource Manager is to create a safe, comfortable, and non-hostile work environment for the employees.  As an employer, you must make sure that all your employees are treated equally. Discrimination, harassment, and unequal treatment of employees may constitute a hostile work environment.

The consequences of a hostile work environment include costly litigation, high staff turnover and low productivity. Any of these consequences could cripple a company, leading sometimes to its demise.

If you need help setting up the right policies and procedures, it’s a good idea to consult a New York City business lawyer who can help you create an ideal work environment for your employees. Rather than wait for an embarrassing lawsuit to retainer a lawyer, it is good practice to have an employment lawyer help you avoid the pitfalls.

How an Employer Can Avoid a Hostile Work Environment
To prevent creating a hostile work environment, first, you need to focus on what causes it. When behaviors like discrimination, victimization, violence, and sexual harassment occur in a company, it leads to hostile behavior. If employees are intimated, scared, or offended by the actions or behaviors of co-workers, managers, or clients, it creates a hostile work environment.  Here are some attributes that put employees at risk of harassment:

• Nationality
• Disability
• Race
• Religion
• Gender
• Sexual Orientation

It’s important to have well-documented policies and procedures to enforce anti-discrimination and harassment policies.

Zero Tolerance and Training to Prevent a Hostile Work Environment

As an employer, you can create a safe, welcoming, and employee-friendly environment with a few simple steps, as follows:

• Zero-tolerance: This is a very effective policy to prevent harassment, inappropriate or discriminatory behavior. An inappropriate comment or joke may offend some people, but not others. Therefore, it’s important to prohibit any behavior, speech, or actions that another employee could find offensive. The team at VMW LAW can help you formulate your policies and procedures and give you advice on how to notify employees of your expectations.
• Taking actions: When an incident is reported by any employee, Human Resources should handle it very seriously, and resolve the issue before the situation gets worse. That may mean terminating employees that violate the policies and procedures related to creating a hostile work environment.
• Training your employees: Offering harassment training to your employees daily is very important. Managers need specific, personalized training to help avoid the appearance of discrimination that can lead to a hostile environment. Computer-based training is a great way to track who has completed the training and to conduct quizzes on the materials to ensure learning and retention of these critical policies.

Support Employees Claiming Harassment

If any of your employees report discrimination, it’s important to address their concerns. It’s also a good idea to consult a NYC employment attorney to make sure your company does everything it can to resolve the issue. Hire a New York employment attorney with many years of experience in the field. Moreover, a knowledgeable NYC employment lawyer can guide you on how you can protect employees’ rights in your organization.

Roles of New York Employment Attorneys in Creating a Safe Work Environment

New York employment attorneys help workers get justice if they experience wrongful termination, sexual harassment, unlawful firings, and discrimination based on age, race, gender, or religion. Some employment lawyers help employers to avoid the consequences of a hostile work environment. VMW LAW, a New York-based law firm, provides extraordinary support and has an excellent team of NYC employment lawyers to ensure that you get the best legal services available.

So, partner with a New York City business lawyer who will strive to get you best outcome. When employees feel humiliated, unsupported, and discriminated against, nobody wins. It is time you create an inclusive work culture that discourages discriminatory behavior and inappropriate actions.

Businesses utilize lawyers for various reasons, most notably when they are brawling in legal battles against competitors and need protection from various legal claims. In addition to this, both start-ups and renowned companies will also turn to attorneys when they need experts to register new ventures, purchase or lease property, finance agreements, and service agreements among others. Whichever of these instances you need help with, getting the right New York business contracts lawyer will be essential in ensuring you get the best out of every scenario.

Negotiating and Reviewing Business Agreements