"I asked my attorney who said it was lawful to proceed."
In our complex regulatory environment, this inquiry is an understandable action. Individuals who rely on the advice of counsel may be able to demonstrate good faith in their actions, and consequently negate the intent to deceive required to prove fraud. However, there are many limitations and pitfalls in asserting this defense.
The basic requirements to successfully assert "advice of counsel" are: (1) seeking the advice of counsel in good faith; (2) making a complete disclosure of all known relevant facts; and (3), undertaking reasonable reliance upon and in fact following the received advice.
A recent decision by a Magistrate Judge of the federal District Court for the Middle District of Florida in a case, U.S. ex rel. Elin Baklid-Kunz v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center and Halifax Staffing, Inc., illustrates the problems inherent in the advice of counsel defense. In this situation, merely collecting facts with a cover sheet addressed to general counsel and with each page stamped "Confidential Attorney-Client Privileged Information" was held to be insufficient to convey privileged status or indicate advice of counsel. The attorney did not comment on the recorded information nor was there an affirmative seeking of the advice of counsel. Additionally, many of the documents in question were not protected from discovery since they were not in fact part of a privileged communication to counsel.
Recent federal Court of Appeals decisions have denied the advice of counsel defense for the following reasons:
- Failure to disclose to bankruptcy counsel that a restitution order derived from a criminal conviction.