From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
United States v. Stein
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
541 F.3d 130 (2008)
The United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) (plaintiff) commenced an investigation of the partners and employees of KPMG, LLP for the use of fraudulent tax shelters. KPMG retained attorney Robert Bennett and his law firm, Skadden, Arps, Slare, Meagher & Flom LLP (Skadden) to navigate its approach to dealing with federal authorities. During the investigation, Bennett and USAO attorneys communicated a number of times. Bennett met with prosecutors who inquired about KPMG’s arrangement to pay legal fees for its employees. The prosecutors advised Bennett that, per the Thompson Memorandum promulgated by the USAO, they would view KPMG unfavorably and as potentially culpable if KPMG covered employee legal fees beyond what was legally required. The prosecutors promised to look at KPMG’s fee policy “under a microscope.” The prosecutors implied that they would prosecute KPMG if it voluntarily paid the legal fees of employees who engaged in misconduct. As a result, KPMG revised its fee policy. The revised policy imposed a cap of $400,000, a condition that employees cooperate with the government, and the termination of fee advancement if the employee was indicted. Prosecutors also routinely informed Skadden attorneys that certain employees were not fully cooperating so that KPMG would pressure the employees to cooperate. Ultimately, KPMG entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with a satisfied USAO. On the same day, the USAO indicted at least 19 KPMG employees including Jeffrey Stein and 12 other defendants (the employees) (defendants). KPMG swiftly ceased advancing legal fees to the indicted employees. The employees moved to dismiss the indictment because the government had interfered with KPMG’s advancement of legal fees. The district court dismissed the indictment. The government appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Jacobs, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 603,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.