Ethics

Article here.  It's always a little dangerous to sort out the facts through media accounts, but as far as I can tell, in the Broadcom investigation the Irell lawyers did give the CFO "Upjohn warnings" that what he said to the lawyers could be disclosed to others, including the government, at the company's discretion.  The judge excluded the CFO's statements anyway, because Irell also represented the CFO as an individual in some class action suits that named the company and individual officers.  If I understand those facts correctly, the harsh tone in the trial court's order was not justified, and the Ninth Circuit's decision will have to deal with a "mixed" fact pattern.  Certainly, it is too late in the day for a firm not to give Upjohn warnings in such a situation, but it seems that there was no such failure in this matter.  Does anyone have a link to the briefs?