Former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson to Lead ERC Board

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson to Lead ERC Board The Board of Directors of the Ethics Research Center (ERC), the research arm of ECI, announced the appointment of Larry D. Thompson as the Chairman of the ERC Board, effective immediately. Patricia Harned, Ethics & Compliance Initiative’s president and CEO, made the announcement. “We are honored that Larry Thompson is going to be leading ERC,” Harned said. “His expertise in ethics and compliance will be an invaluable asset in leading the organization into the future.” Thompson served as Deputy Attorney General from 2001-2003 in the George W. Bush Administration. During his tenure, President George W. Bush named him the leader of the government-wide Corporate Fraud Task Force. He was then appointed by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft as the leader of the United States Justice Department’s National Security Coordination Council. Following a prestigious tenure in public service he joined PepsiCo as Executive Vice President, Government Affairs, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary. From 2012-2014 he led the corporation’s worldwide legal department, global government affairs and public policy group and its global citizenship and sustainability team. “I’m honored and pleased to participate in the leadership of this important organization. It will be exciting to work with the many top flight professionals and academics in the ethics and compliance field,” said Thompson. Thompson has received numerous awards for his professional achievements, including the Edmund Jennings Randolph Award for outstanding contributions to the accomplishment of the Department of Justice’s mission and the Outstanding Litigator Award from the Federal Bar Association, among others. Thompson is the John A. Sibley Chair of Corporate and Business Law at the University of Georgia School of Law. He received his BA degree from Culver-Stockton College in Canton, MO, a MA degree from Michigan State University and a law degree from the University of Michigan. .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

2008 Annual Report
5 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE FEATURED ARTICLES AND THE 2008 ANNUAL REPORT Benjamin Franklin’s Shoe PAGE 4 A Road Rich with Milestones PAGE 10 Today and Tomorrow: 2008 Annual Report PAGE 16 2008 Financials PAGE 22 FEATUREMAILBOX ONE 2 NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER 5 Years of Excellence LETTER FROM THE EDITORS Dear Friends: Exceptional. That is the only word that can fully describe the remarkable strides the National Constitution Center has made in the past five years. Since opening its doors on July 4, 2003, it has developed into one of the most esteemed institutions for the ongoing study, discussion and celebration of the United States’ most cherished document. We’re pleased to present a celebration of the Center’s first five years and the 2008 Annual Report. In the following pages you will read about the Center’s earliest days and the milestones it has experienced. You will learn about the moving exhibitions it has developed and presented over the years. You will look back at the many robust public conversations led by national figures that have occurred on site, and you will be introduced to a new and innovative international initiative destined to carry the Center boldly into the future. It has been a true pleasure to work for this venerable institution, informing and inspiring We the People. We both look forward to witnessing the Center’s future achievements and we are honored that the next chapter of this story will be written by the Center’s new Chairman, President Bill Clinton. Sincerely, President George H. W. Bush Joseph M.
[Show full text]
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, Vol. 155, Pt
March 12, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, Vol. 155, Pt. 6 7157 raise about $300 billion a year. They Sunday, digging deep and putting were confirmed without a single dis- are not refunding that. So this is an- money in, a far greater percentage of senting vote by Democrats. Notwith- other giant problem the President has their pocket—and they are not getting standing that, Senate Republicans with his budget. any tax break for that. They are not have decided to ignore the national se- A couple other concluding points. We getting a tax break. They take a stand- curity challenges this country is facing have a situation here where we should ard deduction and they give to charity since the attacks of 9/11, and they have sit down together and think about our because it helps the people in this returned to their partisan, narrow, ide- children, our grandchildren. Instead of country who are in need. These are ological, and divisive tactics of the giving us what we want today, let us people who barely have enough money 1990s. think about the debt we are passing on to pay for food for their own families, In fact, it was the nomination of Eric to them. What is that debt like? It is as yet they give to charity. Holder to be the Deputy Attorney Gen- though we have taken their credit card Let us stop setting up a straw man eral in 1997 that was the last time a and we are running up their credit card that somehow the very wealthy among President’s choice for Deputy Attorney and they have to pay the finance us won’t give anything to charity if we General was held up in the Senate.
[Show full text]
Federal Erosion of Business Civil Liberties
“What is astonishing is that the attorney-client privilege, one of the foundational rights on which rests Anglo-American legal culture . should now be under siege. The two federal agencies that have been most SPECIAL REPORT: vigorous in seeking waiver of the attorney-client privilege have been the Department of Federal Erosion Justice and — unfortunately, I of Business must say — the Securities and Exchange Commission.” Civil Liberties Paul S. Atkins SEC Commissioner January 18, 2008 WLF Washington Legal Foundation “The message should be clear Advocate for freedom and justice© 2009 Massachusetts Avenue, NW that prosecutions will go as high Washington, DC 20036 up the corporate hierarchy as www.wlf.org the evidence permits and we will hold senior managers of corporations accountable, as well as the corporation itself.” Granta Y. Nakayama EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance June 12, 2006 SPECIAL REPORT: Federal Erosion of Business Civil Liberties This Report, along with WLF’s Timeline: Federal Erosion of Business Civil Liberties, is a part of our ongoing CRIMINALIZATION OF FREE ENTERPRISE—BUSINESS CIVIL LIBERTIES PROGRAM. For more information on this program or to receive additional copies of this Report or the Timeline, please contact WLF at (202) 588-0302 or visit us online at www.wlf.org. Copyright © 2008 Washington Legal Foundation Table of Contents Introduction: The Honorable Dick Thornburgh .........................ii Chapter One: Mens Rea, Public Welfare Offenses, and the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine ............................ 1-1 Chapter Two: Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Enforcement Policies ............................................. 2-1 Chapter Three: Department of Justice Criminal Prosecution Policies ....... 3-1 Chapter Four: Parallel Civil and Criminal Prosecutions ................
[Show full text]
Unclassified Report on the President's Surveillance Program
10 July 2009 Preface (U) Title III of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act of 2008 required the Inspectors General (IGs) of the elements of the Intelligence Community that participated in the President's Surveillance Program (PSP) to conduct a comprehensive review of the program. The IGs of the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence participated in the review required under the Act. The Act required the IGs to submit a comprehensive report on the review to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House Committee on the Judiciary. (U) In response to Title III requirements, we have prepared this unclassified report on the PSP, which summarizes the collective results of our reviews. Because many aspects of the PSP remain classified, and in order to provide the Congressional committees the complete results of our reviews, we also prepared, and have bound separately, a classified report on the PSP. The individual reports detailing the results of each IG's review are annexes to the classified report . L Co,J)_~. £b./I2W Glenn A. Fine Gordon S. Heddell o Inspector General Acting Inspector General Department of Justice Department of Defense r 9rlnl Wtt&J1;:J f20j0JLc( Patricia A. LeWiS Ge ~ Acting Inspector General Inspector General Central Intelligence Agency National Security Agency ROkh:.~ ~ Inspector General Office of the Director of National Intelligence UNCLASSIFIED REPORT ON THE PRESIDENT'S SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM I.
[Show full text]
Political Control of Federal Prosecutions: Looking Back and Looking Forward
Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2009 Political Control of Federal Prosecutions: Looking Back and Looking Forward Daniel C. Richman Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Daniel C. Richman, Political Control of Federal Prosecutions: Looking Back and Looking Forward, 58 DUKE L. J. 2087 (2009). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2464 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POLITICAL CONTROL OF FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS: LOOKING BACK AND LOOKING FORWARD DANIEL RICHMANt ABSTRACT This Essay explores the mechanisms of control over federal criminal enforcement that the administration and Congress used or failed to use during George W. Bush's presidency. It gives particular attention to Congress, not because legislators played a dominant role, but because they generally chose to play such a subordinate role. My fear is that the media focus on management inadequacies or abuses within the Justice Department during the Bush administrationmight lead policymakers and observers to overlook the
[Show full text]
Important Figures in the NSC
Important Figures in the NSC Nixon Administration (1969-1973) National Security Council: President: Richard Nixon Vice President: Spiro Agnew Secretary of State: William Rogers Secretary of Defense: Melvin Laird Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA): Henry Kissinger Director of CIA: Richard Helms Chairman of Joint Chiefs: General Earle Wheeler / Admiral Thomas H. Moorer Director of USIA: Frank Shakespeare Director of Office of Emergency Preparedness: Brig. Gen. George Lincoln National Security Council Review Group (established with NSDM 2) APNSA: Henry A. Kissinger Rep. of Secretary of State: John N. Irwin, II Rep. of Secretary of Defense: David Packard, Bill Clements Rep. of Chairman of Joint Chiefs: Adm. Thomas H. Moorer Rep. of Director of CIA: Richard Helms, James R. Schlesinger, William E. Colby National Security Council Senior Review Group (NSDM 85—replaces NSCRG/ NSDM 2) APNSA: Henry A. Kissinger Under Secretary of State: Elliott L. Richardson / John N. Irwin, II Deputy Secretary of Defense: David Packard / Bill Clements Director of Central Intelligence: Richard Helms Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: General Earle Wheeler / Admiral Thomas H. Moorer Under Secretary’s Committee: Under Secretary of State: Elliott L. Richardson / John N. Irwin, II APNSA: Henry Kissinger Deputy Secretary of Defense: David Packard / Bill Clements Chairman of Joint Chiefs: Gen. Earle G. Wheeler / Adm. Thomas H. Moorer Director of CIA: Richard M. Helms Nixon/Ford Administration (1973-1977) National Security Council: President: Richard Nixon (1973-1974) Gerald Ford (1974-1977) Vice President: Gerald Ford (1973-1974) Secretary of State: Henry Kissinger Secretary of Defense: James Schlesinger / Donald Rumsfeld APNSA: Henry Kissinger / Brent Scowcroft Director of CIA: Richard Helms / James R.
[Show full text]
The Mcnulty Memorandum, the KPMG Decision and Corporate Cooperation: Individual Rights and Legal Ethics
The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2008 The McNulty Memorandum, the KPMG Decision and Corporate Cooperation: Individual Rights and Legal Ethics Sarah Helene Duggin The Catholic University of American, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation Sarah Helene Duggin, The McNulty Memorandum, the KPMG Decision and Corporate Cooperation: Individual Rights and Legal Ethics, 21 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 341 (2008). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 2007 SYMPOSIUM The McNulty Memorandum, the KPMG Decision and Corporate Cooperation: Individual Rights and Legal Ethics SARAH HELENE DUGGIN* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE CURRENT STATUS OF FEDERAL CORPORATE COOPERATION POLICIES AND ONGOING EFFORTS TO EFFECT ADMINISTRATIVE, LEGISLATIVE, AND DOCTRINAL CHANGE .................... 349 A. THE ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL CORPORATE COOPERATION POLICIES ............................. 349 B. THE McNULTY MEMORANDUM ..................... 356 1. PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS ............................ 357 a. W aiver Requests .............................. 357 b.
[Show full text]
Part IV. Professionalism Here Be Dragons
Originally published in Alice Gosfield, Health Law Handbook 2018 Edition, © 2018 Thomson Reuters. Used with permission. Health Law Handbook 2018 Edition is available in print and on Westlaw. For more information on this publication, please visit legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com. Part IV. Professionalism Here Be Dragons: Navigating Dangerous Territory with A “Challenging” Client WILLIAM W. HORTON JONES WALKER LLP I. AN INTRODUCTORY VIGNETTE: IT’S BETTER TO SEEK FORGIVENESS THAN PERMISSION. BUT THEN, ONLY THE LITTLE PEOPLE RE- ALLY NEED FORGIVENESS ANYWAY ............... 684 II. SITUATIONS THEY DON’T REALLY COVER IN ETHICS CLASS .............................................. 687 A. True Life, Ripped from the Headlines ............... 687 1. Too Many Lawyers .................................... 687 2. Acting on Advice of Counsel ......................... 692 3. How Can I Miss You If You Won’t Go Away? .... 700 B. But We’re Healthcare Lawyers! What Does All This Have to Do with Us? ............................... 703 III. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PRACTICAL REALITY: DEALING WITH THE ETHICAL AND PRACTICAL ISSUES THAT ARISE IN A “CHALLENGING” ATTORNEY-CLIENT RE- LATIONSHIP ................................................. 708 A. First Principles (and First Problems) ............... 709 B. A Surfeit of Lawyers ..................................... 711 C. “The Lawyers Don’t Want Me to Say This, but . .” ......................................................... 715 D. The Slippery Slope from Counselor to Conspira- tor ...........................................................
[Show full text]
Thompson Draft Draft.Qxd
Conversations With... SPRING 2012 The Honorable Dick Thornburgh Larry D. Thompson The Issue: Advancing Business Compliance programs did exist in Integrity through Corporate specific areas such as antitrust. It has Compliance been my experience over the years Dick Thornburgh that businesspeople are generally very K & L Gates LLP In this edition of Washington Legal honest; whatever compliance efforts Foundation’s CONVERSATIONS WITH, that existed previously were well- former Pennsylvania Governor and meaning and undertaken in good Attorney General of the United States faith. What was not understood 20 to Dick Thornburgh discusses the vex- 25 years ago was exactly how to ing challenges of corporate compli- implement these programs, how much ance with former Deputy Attorney training was needed under these pro- General Larry D. Thompson. Mr. grams, or even how significant these Thompson draws upon his experi- programs are to a company’s busi- ences as a private attorney, a U.S. ness. By today’s standards, the com- Attorney, Deputy Attorney General, pliance programs of that era would Larry Thompson and general counsel of PepsiCo to mostly be viewed as inadequate. University of Georgia explain the legal, financial, and other Law School benefits of designing and maintaining Governor Thornburgh: Can you note effective corporate compliance pro- two or three developments over the grams. He also offers his thoughts on past several decades that inspired current complicating factors such as greater commitment to compliance the rise of whistleblowing and he and the formalization of programs? adovcates for an affirmative defense of an effective compliance plan. Mr. Thompson: Yes. Clearly, the promulgation in 1991 of the organiza- Governor Thornburgh: Let’s start tional sentencing guidelines by the by putting the sophisticated compli- U.S.
[Show full text]
Show Me the Money: the Thompson Memo, Stein, and an Employee's Right to the Advancement of Legal Fees Under the Mcnulty Memo John Power
Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 64 | Issue 3 Article 10 Summer 6-1-2007 Show Me the Money: The Thompson Memo, Stein, and an Employee's Right to the Advancement of Legal Fees Under the McNulty Memo John Power Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation John Power, Show Me the Money: The Thompson Memo, Stein, and an Employee's Right to the Advancement of Legal Fees Under the McNulty Memo, 64 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1205 (2007), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol64/iss3/10 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Show Me the Money: The Thompson Memo, Stein, and an Employee's Right to the Advancement of Legal Fees Under the McNulty Memo John Power* Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................ 1206 II. Advancement and Indemnification in Corporate America .......... 1208 A. Arguments for Indemnification and Advancement .............. 1209 B. Arguments Against Indemnification and Advancement ...... 1212 III. The Thompson M emo and Stein ................................................. 1215 A . The Thompson M em o ......................................................... 1216 B . The Facts of Stein ................................................................ 1218 C. The Stein Court's Findings on Advancement and the Thom pson M em o ................................................................. 1224 IV. Advancem ent After Stein ............................................................ 1229 A. The End of the Thompson Memo and the Coming of the M cN ulty M em o ..................................................................
[Show full text]
In the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 20-659 In the Supreme Court of the United States LARRY THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. POLICE OFFICER PAGIEL CLARK, SHIELD #28472; POLICE OFFICER PAUL MONTEFUSCO, SHIELD #10580; POLICE OFFICER PHILLIP ROMANO, SHIELD #6295; POLICE OFFICER GERARD BOUWMANS, SHIELD #2102, Respondents. __________________________ On a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit BRIEF OF THE BOSTON UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR ANTIRACIST RESEARCH AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER JASMINE B. GONZALES ROSE ANGELA ONWUACHI-WILLIG* PROFESSOR OF LAW AND DEAN AND RYAN ROTH GALLO & ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF POLICY ERNEST J. GALLO PROFESSOR OF LAW NEDA A. KHOSHKHOO BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LAW & POLICY FELLOW 765 COMMONWEALTH AVENUE BOSTON, MA 02215 CAITLIN GLASS (617) 353-3112 LAW & POLICY FELLOW [email protected] BOSTON UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR ANTIRACIST RESEARCH ONE SILBER WAY, EIGHTH FLOOR BOSTON MA 02215 JUNE 11, 2020 *COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR AMICUS CURIAE SUPREME COURT PRESS ♦ (888) 958-5705 ♦ BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 6 I. THE INDICATIONS-OF-INNOCENCE STANDARD PREVENTS FACTFINDERS FROM REVIEWING POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS SECTION 1983 CLAIMS AGAINST OFFICERS WHO FABRICATE CHARGES AGAINST BIPOC ................................ 6 A. Police Officers Have Routinely Pursued False Charges to Cover Up Their Use of Excessive Force Against BIPOC ................ 8 B. Police Officers Have Pursued False Charges Against BIPOC Who Assert Their Constitutional Rights When Faced with Revenue-Generating Tactics Tar- geting BIPOC Communities ..................... 15 C. Police Officers Have Targeted BIPOC in Large-Scale Scandals Involving False Drug and Gun Charges............................
[Show full text]
DOJ Changes Its Rules for Assessing Corporate Cooperation
IN PRINT DOJ CHANGES itS RULES For ASSESSinG CorporATE CoopERAtion R. Christopher Cook and Joseph W. Clark The Department of Justice (DOJ) has amended sig- their legal costs or continue employment while an nificantly its official position regarding the corporate investigation is pending, confident that such equi- attorney-client privilege and the manner in which table treatment will not be seen by DOJ as a sign of it expects organizations to treat employees sus- obstruction. pected of wrongdoing. These changes, announced by Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip on August This new approach by DOJ is welcome news for the 28, 2008, promise to have a profound effect on the health care industry, whose organizations have been manner in which organizations are treated by DOJ the subject of a disproportionate number of criminal when employees are alleged to have violated the investigations in the last decade. As with other orga- law. Under these new guidelines, organizations nizations that have been the target of DOJ investi- should have a greater ability to investigate poten- gations recently, health care companies often have tial wrongdoing without fear that legitimately privi- been the subject of heavy-handed tactics. Pros- leged communications will be subject to a forced ecutors have routinely demanded waivers of the waiver. Likewise, organizations should be free to treat attorney-client privilege as a condition of treating employees fairly when deciding whether to pay for an organization as “cooperative” in an investigation, A version of this article originally appeared in HCCA Compliance Today, February 2009. © 2009 Jones Day. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.
[Show full text]