The effect of the Arthur Andersen verdict on inside counsel

The Arthur Andersen case is a nightmare for inside counsel – an act of inside counsel, which probably was a well‐intentioned attempt to protect the client’s interests, resulted in the conviction of Arthur Andersen. The verdict in the government’s obstruction of justice case against Andersen shows, among other things, that every time an in‐house lawyer sends an e‐mail, he or she must anticipate that privilege will not attach and adverse inferences may be drawn. On June 15, 2002, the jurors in that case returned a guilty verdict against the accounting firm, which, according to press reports of interviews with jurors, was based not on the government’s presentation of evidence demonstrating Andersen’s “wholesale destruction of documents’ or even on the testimony of David Duncan, Andersen’s lead partner on the Enron audit, that he obstructed justice, but rather on a single e‐mail from Andersen in‐house counsel Nancy Temple.