Preserving Privilege in Internal Investigations

2024/11/21

An article from Pietragallo’s Government Enforcement, Compliance, & White Collar Litigation Group’s Publication of Staying Ahead of the Curve: Practical Guidance for Government Enforcement Matters and Internal Investigations. The full publication can be found here.   One thing leaders of organizations routinely recognize is that “you never know what tomorrow will bring.” Another common slogan is “life happens.” If “life” happens to bring the organization a situation that could expose the organization, its employees, customers, leaders or other constituencies to physical, legal, financial or reputational peril, a logical first step is to conduct an internal investigation to identify the extent, cause, and scope of the problem, and to receive informed legal advice about how to address it. The information developed through internal investigations may be protected from disclosure to third parties by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines. This article presents an “FAQ” about how those privileges may apply to internal investigations, and steps that should be taken to preserve those protections. What privileges may apply? Attorney-client privilege: Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a lawyer and their client that relate to the client’s seeking of legal advice or services. It encompasses any form of communication, including oral, written or electronic. The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client, and the client must consent to any disclosure of privileged communications by the lawyer to a third party. Work product: The work product doctrine, as its name suggests, protects the work product – the thoughts, mental impressions, and analysis of counsel prepared in anticipation of litigation. What steps should we take at the outset to protect privilege as best as possible? Bearing in mind that attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications with counsel aimed at receiving legal advice, and the work product doctrine protects the analysis and mental impressions of counsel, the best way to ensure that information developed in an internal investigation will be protected from unwanted disclosure is to have an attorney direct the investigation. Read More

Supreme Court Leaves Open a Major Risk to Internal Corporate Communications

2024/11/21

An article from Pietragallo’s Government Enforcement, Compliance, & White Collar Litigation Group’s Publication of Staying Ahead of the Curve: Practical Guidance for Government Enforcement Matters and Internal Investigations. The full publication can be found here.   It is commonplace for attorneys, compliance officers, and other executives (particularly those who are also attorneys) to receive communications from clients that have more than one purpose. Take for example a doctor who calls a friend and the hospital’s compliance officer to set up a dinner for their families. During that call, the doctor mentions that he is thinking about starting his own practice and asks the compliance officer if he thinks it is a good idea. Later in the conversation, the doctor mentions to the compliance officer that one of her colleagues has a habit of looking into the records of other physicians’ patients and the doctor says she finds this “creepy.” The doctor asks the compliance officer if he is obligated to report the colleague for a potential HIPAA violation. While you might assume that this conversation is protected by the attorney-client privilege, that assumption can easily be wrong. The hypothetical above raises the issue of “dual-purpose communications,” which are communications between a lawyer and client that have both legal and non-legal purposes. Dual-purpose communications occur routinely in businesses across the country, particularly in highly regulated areas such as healthcare compliance. Recent decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court have drawn into question how courts will determine whether dual purpose communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Courts have historically used one of two tests to analyze whether dual-purpose communications should be protected by the attorney-client privilege. First, under “the primary purpose” test, courts look at whether the primary purpose of the communication is to give or receive legal advice, as opposed to business or tax advice. Read More

When Authorities Come Knocking: Preparing For, and Responding Appropriately To, The Execution of a Search Warrant

2024/11/21

An article from Pietragallo’s Government Enforcement, Compliance, & White Collar Litigation Group’s Publication of Staying Ahead of the Curve: Practical Guidance for Government Enforcement Matters and Internal Investigations. The full publication can be found here.   One of our country’s Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, taught us, “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.” It is imperative that everyone, especially those who own a business or otherwise run an organization, prepare for the possibility of being the subject or target of an investigation by law enforcement. To be clear, not only those engaging in unlawful conduct find themselves on the receiving end of a government inquiry. The United States Department of Justice employs more than 115,000 individuals across its various divisions, many of whom are paid for the sole purpose of conducting investigations. States’ Attorneys General and county and city prosecutors across the country each employ up to hundreds or thousands of employees, many of whom do not try cases but rather investigate alleged crimes for potential prosecution. Coupled with incentives for whistleblowers to report wrongdoing, it is entirely possible, and even likely in select industries, that businesses will be the subject of legal process at some point in the company’s lifespan. The most serious – and intimidating – of such legal process is the execution of a search warrant. It is incumbent upon corporate entities and their leadership to prepare all employees on how to calmly and effectively respond to the execution of a search warrant in order to avoid allegations of obstruction, limit admissions and liability, maintain continuity of operations, and preserve all available privileges. The below steps serve as a non-exhaustive checklist of best practices to accomplish the above goals. Immediately notify counsel that a search warrant has been served and is being executed. Counsel are trained professionals who are best suited to interface with government agents. Read More

Pietragallo recognized in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms®

2024/11/07

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP has been recognized in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms®, receiving sixteen Tier 1 Metro rankings in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. These sixteen rankings include: Commercial Litigation (PGH & PHL) Criminal Defense – White Collar (PHL) Employment Law – Individuals (PHL) Employment Law – Management (PHL) Health Care Law (PHL) Family Law (PGH) Insurance Law (PGH) Litigation – Insurance (PGH) Litigation – Labor & Employment (PGH & PHL) Litigation – Real Estate (PGH) Litigation – Trusts & Estates (PGH) Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs (PGH) Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (PGH) Product Liability Litigation – Defendants (PGH) Trusts and Estates (PGH) Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers (PGH) In addition to the Tier 1 Metro rankings, Pietragallo also received ten Tier 2 and Tier 3 Metro rankings: Tier 2 Metro firm in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia in the respective practice areas of Bet-the-Company Litigation, Corporate Compliance Law, Construction Law, Criminal Defense: White Collar, Employment Law – Management, and Litigation – Intellectual Property. Tier 3 Metro firm in Pittsburgh in the practice areas of Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Corporate Law, and Litigation – Construction. Pietragallo has also been named as a Tier 2 National firm in Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Labor & Employment and a Tier 3 National firm for our work in Health Care Law. Best Law Firms rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. Clients were asked to provide feedback on firm practice groups, addressing: expertise, responsiveness, understanding of a business and its needs, cost-effectiveness, civility, and whether they would refer another client to the firm. Read More

Pamela Coyle Brecht to Present at Seton Hall’s Virtual Healthcare Compliance Program

2024/10/08

Partner Pamela Coyle Brecht will be returning to Seton Hall’s Virtual Healthcare Compliance Program held on October 8, 2024. Pam will be co-presenting alongside Meredith Auten on “The False Claims Act and Dealing with Whistleblowers.” This 4-day virtual program will cover statutes, regulations, and other guidance that encompass the body of law known as fraud and abuse law. Pam’s panel will take place on the second day of the program with the day’s topics focusing on False Claims Act; Anti-Kickback statute; Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; Diversity, Equity and Inclusion; Advertising & Promotion; and Speaker Programs.   Read More

Marc S. Raspanti to Speak at American Bar Association’s 2024 Civil False Claims Institute

2024/06/05

Partner Marc S. Raspanti will be presenting virtually at the American Bar Association’s 2024 Civil False Claims Institute on June 4-5, 2024. His panel will be on “Litigation: From Seal Lift to Final Pretrial Conference — 9(B), Touhy, Claims, Experts, and More”. Marc’s panel will cover advanced perspectives on drafting a complaint, motions to dismiss, all aspects of fact and expert discovery, and pre-trial practice. This program includes some of FCA bar’s most experienced litigators that will explain how to effectively litigate an FCA case, whether declined or intervened. Read More

Pietragallo Elevates Two New Partners for 2024

2024/10/16

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce the promotion of two lawyers to partnership: Alexander M. Owens and Mark T. Sottile in Philadelphia, PA. “We are pleased to recognize the professional excellence of our newest partners Alexander Owens and Mark Sottile. These lawyers represent the best of the long-range future of our law firm,” said William Pietragallo, Managing Partner of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP. New partners: Alexander M. Owens focuses his practice on the False Claims Act, Commercial Litigation, White Collar Litigation, and Class Action matters. He has tried multiple cases to verdict in state and federal courts. Beyond litigation, he counsels clients on regulatory issues arising under federal and state healthcare laws. Mark T. Sottile focuses his practice on Employment Litigation and Counseling and Commercial Litigation. He has tried multiple cases to verdict in Pennsylvania and New Jersey state and federal courts and obtained summary judgment victories in countless high-stakes employment and commercial litigation matters. He has litigated hundreds of employment and commercial law claims under a number of federal statutes. About Pietragallo Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is a multi-disciplined business and litigation law firm headquartered in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with six offices throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and West Virginia from which we are able to serve our clients in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Read More

Pietragallo Expands to New Jersey

2024/09/10

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is delighted to announce the opening of our newest office in Marlton, New Jersey. Pietragallo currently has ten attorneys barred in New Jersey to serve our clients throughout the Garden State, with additional attorneys in the process of becoming members of the State bar. Their practices cover several specialties including government enforcement and white collar litigation, qui tam and False Claims Act litigation, internal investigations, employment, health care, commercial litigation, professional liability, and Title IX and sexual misconduct. Our New Jersey office will be led by Scott A. Coffina, former Burlington County Prosecutor from 2017-2022, and former Senior Deputy Chief Counsel to Governor Chris Christie. Scott is the co-chair of our Government Enforcement, Compliance, & White Collar Litigation practice group. Scott also has served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Philadelphia and served as Associate Counsel to the President under President George W. Bush. “We are very excited to expand into New Jersey with our new Marlton office,” said Pietragallo founding partner and Chairman, William Pietragallo, II. “Our firm already serves a number of clients in New Jersey,” he added. “Although our Philadelphia office is nearby, New Jersey is a different legal market and court system, and we are confident that we and our clients will benefit from our physical presence in the Garden State.” The Marlton office is located at 50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 110, Marlton, NJ 08053.  The office’s main number is 856-817-2600. Scott can be reached at 856-817-2601 or by email at SAC@Pietragallo.com.   About Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP Pietragallo is a multi-disciplined litigation and business law firm headquartered in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with six offices throughout Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and now New Jersey. Read More

26 Pietragallo Lawyers Named in 2025 The Best Lawyers In America and Ones to Watch

2024/08/15

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce that 26 lawyers have been named as 2025 The Best Lawyers in America® and Ones to Watch. In addition, Founding Partner William Pietragallo II has received “Lawyer of the Year” award for his work in Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants in Pittsburgh. He was also recognized for his work in Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions-Plaintiffs, and Personal Injury Litigation-Defendants. Partner Douglas K. Rosenblum has also received “Lawyer of the Year” award for his work in Corporate Compliance Law in Philadelphia. Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review. Their process is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. The following were chosen as The Best Lawyers in America: Gaetan Alfano Bet-the-Company Litigation Commercial Litigation Employment Law – Individuals Employment Law – Management Litigation – Labor and Employment Charles J. Avalli Family Law Litigation – Trusts and Estates Trusts and Estates Joseph J. Bosick Construction Law Litigation – Construction Pamela Coyle Brecht Qui Tam Law Kerri Lee Cappella Family Law Mark Gordon Insurance Law Litigation – Insurance Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers Kenneth J. Horoho, Jr. Family Law David E. Lamm Product Liability Litigation – Defendants James F. Marrion Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Michael Morse Criminal Defense: White-Collar Richard J. Parks Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/ Insolvency and Reorganization Law Corporate Law Litigation – Real Estate William Pietragallo II Bet-the-Company Litigation Commercial Litigation Mass Tort Litigation/ Class Actions – Plaintiffs Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants – Lawyer of the Year Francis E. Pipak, Jr. Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers Marc S. Raspanti Criminal Defense: White-Collar Health Care Law Qui Tam Law Douglas K. Read More

Douglas K. Rosenblum Appointed as a Hearing Committee Member Serving the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

2024/07/01

Partner Douglas K. Rosenblum of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP has been appointed as a Hearing Committee Member serving the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania effective July 1, 2024. This appointment is a three-year term. Mr. Rosenblum serves as the Co-Chair of the Government Enforcement, Compliance, and White Collar Litigation Practice Group. He routinely represents entities and individuals under investigation or indictment for a variety of allegations from health care fraud to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. These representations include, but are not limited to, the former Attorney General of Pennsylvania, a former CEO of an American subsidiary of a multi-billion dollar manufacturer, physicians, pharmaceutical sales representatives, and defense contractors. The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is dedicated to protecting the public, maintaining the integrity of the legal profession, and safeguarding the reputation of the courts. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania established the Disciplinary Board in 1972. Hearing Committee members serve the Board as volunteers in their respective districts to conduct hearings and act as a formal reviewing body to determine if a case might move forward in pursuit of a particular course of discipline. Read More