Who's your lawyer. Insights & Wisdom via HBO's Silicon Valley (S.3, E. 1)
The company's attorney may be your friend, but they're not your
lawyer. In this guest post, friend of Errata Elizabeth Wharton
(@lawyerliz) looks at the common misconception highlighted in this week's Silicon
Valley episode.
by Elizabeth Wharton
Amidst
the usual startup shenanigans and inside-valley-jokes, HBO's Silicon Valley
Season 3, Episode 1 contained a sharp reminder: lawyer loyalty runs with the
"client," know whether you are the client. A lawyer hired
by a company has an entity as its client, not the individuals or officers of
that company. If you want an attorney then hire your own.
Silicon
Valley Season 3, Episode 1- Setting the Scene (without too many spoilers, I
promise)
Upon
learning of a board room ouster from the CEO to the CTO role, the startup
company's founder Richard storms into the meeting with two board
"friends" in tow (one, Ron, is the company's counsel). As
Richard burns the bridges of the offered CTO position and prepares for his
dramatic exit, he turns to Ron and asks if he's ready to leave the
meeting. To the Richard's surprise, Ron calmly reminds Richard that he
hired Ron to serve as corporate counsel on behalf of the company. Ron
goes further, explaining that their (the company's and Richard's) interests
became adverse as soon as Richard included threats of litigation and payback
against the board and the company in his epic "From CEO to CTO? I
Quit!" rant only a few moments before. After letting this news sink
in, Richard storms off to continue his rant elsewhere.
Insights
from Richard's Gaffe (Don't be Richard)
While
harsh, Ron's response highlights a common overlooked issue in startup companies: a
company and each of its founders and officers are treated as separate and
distinct from the other. This distinction,
that a company is a separate entity from its individual co-founders, provides
the basis for the liability protections and tax benefits with forming the
company in the first place. The layer of insulation between the company and the individuals extends both ways. Once a
founder's idea or concept becomes a company, the idea's creator (the founder)
and the company no longer share the same interests. What benefits the
individual founder may not be in the best interest of the company and
vice-versa. As Richard discovered during the board room exchange, a board of directors must put the interests of the company above personal friendships with one of the company's founders.
Similarly,
an attorney hired to form a company or provide corporate counsel for the
company represents the company's interests and not those of the individuals who
make up the company. If the parties intend for the attorney to represent
an individual co-founder instead of the company then the documents and
engagement letter must reflect this distinction. Understanding the
attorney-client relationship and duties of loyalty is key when reviewing a term
sheet, operating agreement, or any other agreement between individuals and/or a
company. Perspective and point of view in preparing and interpreting
agreed upon terms revolve around the bias of the drafter. The company's
lawyer does not have a duty to point out to an individual founder, officer, or investor
if the deal terms that benefit the company overall would in turn diminish an
individual's personal interests. If
they're not your lawyer, then you're not the client that they're protecting.
Silicon
Valley's Wisdom Takeaway: A lawyer's professional
loyalty runs with their client. Even if they called you "Richie" only
moments before, when you're not the client then counsel won't join your
dramatic exit or advise you on your next move.
Elizabeth is a business and policy attorney specializing in
information security and unmanned systems.
While Elizabeth is an attorney, nothing in this post is intended as
legal advice. If you need legal advice,
get your own lawyer. (An earlier version of Elizabeth's post first appeared via LinkedIn Pulse but has since been updated and expanded.)
Richard was lucky Ron informed him that they were now on opposing sides. Compare that with Larry Sonsini's questionable ethics when advising Walter Hewlett to vote for HP's acquisition of Compaq:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2001-12-30/walter-hewlett-behind-his-big-switcheroo
Agree - more often than not the issue isn't directly addressed until it's too late.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete