Search results for: SB 21

The fusillade of learned commentary on recent developments in Delaware corporate law, known colloquially as SB 21, continues apace. The Delaware Legislature passed legislation in March that statutorily defines controlling shareholder and director independence, via an amendment to DGCL Section 144. It also imposes additional prerequisites in order for a shareholder to demand corporate books and records, via an amendment to DGCL Section 220. We have highlighted and curated selected articles about this topic on these pages here, here, and here.

A recent scholarly analysis of “what SB 21 does” and “what questions remain” was recently penned by the prolific, venerable corporate law professor Stephen Bainbridge, whose scholarship is cited in Delaware court decisions. The good professor has already published extensively on this topic. His latest article, linked above, highlights the key provisions of SB 21 as follows:

  1. A new definition of “controlling stockholder” requiring either majority voting power ownership or at least one-third ownership plus managerial authority;
  2. Revised standards for cleansing conflicted controller transactions that modify the framework established in Kahn v. M & F Worldwide Corp.;
  3. Automatic exculpation for controlling shareholders from monetary damages except for duty of loyalty breaches, bad faith actions, or improper personal benefits;
  4. A narrower definition of “director independence” with heightened presumptions for directors of publicly traded companies; and
  5. Significant limitations on shareholder inspection rights under DGCL § 220, restricting access primarily to board-level documents.

A PowerPoint with highlights of SB 21 at today’s beginning of the annual Tulane Corporate Law Institute, an event featured many times on these pages in prior years, was part of a panel presentation led William Lafferty of Morris Nichols. For the few people who have missed the tsunami of articles and commentary on the proposed changes to the Delaware General Corporation Law proposed on February 17 in the form of Senate Bill 21, which the Corporation Law Council proposed revisions to on March 3, the above PowerPoint provides an excellent overview.

Most of SB 21 amends DGCL Section 144 related to controlling shareholders and disinterested directors. The amendments to Section 220 were discussed recently on these pages. The revisions proposed on March 3 by the Corporation Law Council would make the changes to Sections 144 and 220 retroactive–except for pending litigation.

The status of SB 21 is in flux, but the Senate and the House are expected to consider it in committee and both chambers will likely vote on the bill before the end of the month. The new Delaware Governor requested the changes, so he is expected to sign it if it passes.

Another panel at the Tulane seminar today included a former Delaware Chancellor and Chief Justice who commented–and I’m only paraphrasing: there are many other factors that are part of the analysis about whether to stay in Delaware, beyond SB 21, e.g., other aspects of Delaware law that protect shareholders.

On another panel, Ned Weinberger observed that SB 21 would overrule a long list of major Delaware decisions (referring to a list of cases compiled by Prof. Eric Talley)–including, arguably, the iconic Revlon decision. His view is that SB 21 is not necessary for Delaware to maintain its preeminence in the corporate world.

I recently attended a seminar in New York on D&O litigation developments called the PLUS Symposium. The topics lean towards the concerns of those who defend D&O cases and provide D&O coverage.

I listened to a panel entitled: “Hot Topics in D&O 2025”. None of the panel members were Delaware lawyers or members of the Delaware judiciary or the Delaware legislative branch, but they litigate in Delaware or broker D&O insurance to Delaware companies.

Naturally, the status of SB 21 was the focus of much of the panel discussion. Since the introduction of SB 21, and amendments earlier this week, an avalanche of articles have been written about the proposed changes to the Delaware General Corporation Law. See, e.g., here and here.

Highlights:

  • Like most people, the panelists don’t know for sure what impact SB 21 will have if it passes–or if it doesn’t pass–but the assumption was that if SB 21 passes it would reduce litigation in Delaware at least related to some types of cases.
  • Apparently, Texas has recently introduced somewhat similar legislation.
  • One panelist suggested that the restrictions on Section 220 demands that SB 21 would impose will reduce many plenary cases. For example, one panel member suggested that the Boeing case would not likely have been possible without all the emails, etc., the plaintiffs obtained in a prior Section 220 demand.
  • Another panelist suggested that regardless of SB 21, other aspects of litigating in Delaware, such as the CCLD division of Superior Court, would still provide benefits from being able to litigate in Delaware.
  • Another panel member saw it as ironic that the legislature was attempting to use SB 21 to counteract decisions of the judiciary–but the judiciary is apparently one of the reasons why corporate entities are attracted to Delaware.
  • The prediction of at least one panel member was that the outcome of SB 21 will be the biggest topic in the D&O world for 2025.

A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision is a treasure trove of fundamental principles applicable to corporate litigation. In Ban v. Manheim, C.A. No.2022-0768-JTL (Del. Ch. May 19, 2025), the 60-plus page post-trial opinion applies an exemplary legal analysis to a complex web of entities controlled by one person, to explain why the valuation of a minority interest failed the entire fairness test—and what the applicable measure of damages requires in the form of a remedy.

Basic Facts

For the benefit of busy lawyers, this is only an extreme precis with bullet points to allow interested readers to determine if they want to review the extensive facts and thorough legal analysis more carefully in order to gain a fuller understanding of the nuances involved.

The essential facts involve a controller who attempted to amend the applicable agreements to provide for a call right and a redemption right that purported to allow him to force-out minority owners at an unfairly low price. The call is referred to in the opinion as the WestCo Call. See Slip op. at 14. The redemption right is referred to as the DVRC Redemption. See Slip op. at 16.

Legal Analysis

  • The court begins by explaining that DGCL § 202(b) bars the restriction of shares without the consent of the shareholder. For this reason the attempted restrictions via a bylaw amendment on shares was a statutorily invalid act. The court emphasized that DGCL § 109, which provides for authority to amend bylaws does not supersede the condition to imposing a restriction on shares in Section 202(b). See Slip op. at 21-22.
  • The court restates the well-settled principle that the fiduciary duty of a controlling shareholder applies when that controller attempts to amend bylaws. See Slip op. at 25.
  • The court provides the reasons why the entire fairness standard applies to self-interested transactions generally. Slip op. at 31.
  • In a footnote that extends for about three pages, the court regales the reader with an analysis regarding the materiality of “non-imminent risk,” and questions the “intuition” in the recent Delaware Supreme Court TripAdvisor decision in this context, and in light of the stated purposes of the recently passed SB 21 which sought to minimize non-imminent litigation risk. See footnotes 62 and 89. See also footnote 89.
  • The court does an  deep dive to dissect the entire fairness standard. See Slip op. 35-39.
  • The court acknowledges the primacy of contract but clarifies when it does not bar a fiduciary duty claim. Professor Berle’s venerable twice-testing principle can serve as one example of an exception to that preemption doctrine. See Slip op. at 42-46 and footnote 100.
  • The court reminds us that equity allows for flexibility to remedy a breach of the duty of loyalty such that mathematical certainty is not required in proving damages in that context.
  • A memorable elucidation of the differences between fair market value and fair value is presented. The court observes that it is not limited in awarding fair market value (which includes discounts like marketability) when a controller takes away equity interests of a minority owner. See Slip op. at 56.
  • A fiduciary can be forced to disgorge profit resulting from a breach of fiduciary duty, even if the gain did not come at the beneficiary’s expense in certain circumstances. See Slip op. at 57-60.
  • The court makes the noteworthy distinction between the measure of damages in an appraisal case as compared to the damages analysis when a breach of fiduciary duty claim is involved. See Slip op. at 60.
  • One of the many treasures in this opinion is the analysis of the competing expert opinions on valuation and how the court finds fault with the experts for both parties. The court selects the parts of each opinion that the court finds reliable, and discards those to which the court does not give any weight.
  • Essential reading for any litigant relying on experts is the court’s explanation about the limitation on what additional information an expert may appropriately rely on in rebuttal reports or supplemental expert reports. See Slip op. at 60-68.

The inestimable Professor Bainbridge, one the country’s leading corporate law scholars, has done a deep dive into the issues presented by a recent filing in Illinois for corporate records of a Delaware corporation. The good professor has written three articles on the issues raised, such as the internal affairs doctrine. Despite the oddity of the suit being filed in Illinois, the article still provides insights for those grappling with DGCL Section 220 claims in light of the recent changes enacted via SB 21.

A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision might carry more impact than its short length might otherwise suggest. In the matter styled In Re Fox Corporation Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2023-0419-BWD (Del. Ch. April 28, 2025), the court determined that the defendants could engage in limited discovery in order to file a motion for summary judgment on the issue of independence of one of the directors who was found in a prior decision in this case to be lacking in independence for purposes of denying a motion to dismiss for failure to establish pre-suit demand futility. That prior decision was highlighted on these pages here.

This latest ruling in the case begins with the bedrock cardinal precept of Delaware corporate law that the directors manage the affairs of the company–and if they are independent and disinterested, they can control litigation involving the company. Letter op. at 1-2.

Leading corporate law professor Stephen Bainbridge wrote a scholarly article on this recent letter ruling comparing it to the U.S. Supreme Court’s famous “switch in time that saved nine”, in a ruling nearly a century ago that signaled a shift in that court’s approach to controversial decisions. That is, the good professor explains why this ruling may be viewed as suggesting that, by giving the defendants another chance to demonstrate that a majority of the board was independent–and thereby empowering the board to dispense of the case–some Delaware jurists may be exhibiting a more nuanced perspective on shareholder suits that could, possibly, signal additional hope for defendants separate from the recent hurdles imposed by SB 21.

Many more scholarly insights about Delaware corporate law and a potential new approach to cases are featured in the article available at this link.

In the few days since the Delaware Legislature proposed Senate Bill 21 to make major changes to Delaware corporate law, there has been a veritable avalanche of commentary by the professoriate, practitioners, and journalists with their predictions of the consequences of SB 21 being enacted into law. See, e.g., article on The CLS Blue Sky Blog.

Most of the observations by leading scholars and others focus on the more glitzy proposed changes to DGCL Section 144 via SB 21, which features new definitions for “controlling shareholder” and “disinterested director”.

The fusillade of reviews of SB 21 is easily found in a online search about the newly proposed changes in Delaware law that are arguably more dramatic than the revisions to the DGCL last year, which also broke anecdotal records for the high volume of opinions shared from all corners of the corporate commentariat.

But my focus in this short overview will be on the changes to DGCL Section 220, regarding the qualified rights of a shareholder to demand corporate books and records. Not quite as sexy as the proposed amendments to Section 144, but an issue more often encountered.

Having worked as a legislative counsel drafting legislation for the Delaware Legislature about 30 years ago, I realize that the synopsis at the end of a proposed Senate Bill cannot always be relied on for precision, but the part of the synopsis of SB 21 that pertains to the amendments to Section 220 is excerpted below:

… this Act amends § 220 of Title 8 to define the materials that a stockholder may demand to inspect pursuant to a request for books and records of the corporation. The amendments also set forth certain conditions that a stockholder must satisfy in order to make an inspection of books and records. The amendments make clear that information from books and records obtained by a stockholder from a production under § 220 will be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any complaint filed by or at the direction of a stockholder on the basis of information obtained through a demand for books and records. New § 220(b)(4) preserves whatever independent rights of inspection exist under the referenced sources and does not create any rights, either expressly or by implication. New § 220(f) provides that if the corporation does not have specified books and records, including minutes of board and committee meetings, actions of board or any committee, financial statements and director and officer independence questionnaires, the Court of Chancery may order the production of additional corporate records necessary and essential for the stockholder’s proper purpose.

In order to keep my commentary as pithy as possible, I’ll resort to my favorite format of bullet points:

  • I have written over 200 articles about Delaware court decisions on DGCL Section 220 and the analogous section of the Delaware LLC Act, and have litigated countless cases on this topic. See, e.g., selection of some of my articles on Section 220.
  • Although we all know that the sister provision in the LLC Act has important differences, many court decisions have instructed that the reasoning in cases applying Section 220 can often be applicable to the analogous provision in the LLC Act–which is another opening for more commentary about the impact of SB 21 if it is signed into law.
  • Over the nearly 40 years that I have highlighted cases involving Section 220 and its LLC counterpart in various publications, I have tried to provide a neutral overview of the court decisions without my own opinion. But today I will provide my own insights based on the hundreds of cases on this topic that I have written about and litigated:
  • First, some say indeterminacy in Delaware corporate law is a benefit, not a bug, to the extent that the outcome of a case is not predictable. Notwithstanding some measure of predictability that comes from over 2 centuries of Delaware court decisions, in my view, Section 220 cases that are litigated are often a “black hole”–in the astronomical sense of entering a zone that prevents one from predicting what happens after one enters. I acknowledge that to be less than an optimistic view, but it reflects my own experience of many years.
  • Thousands of reported decisions on Section 220 provide some guidance, but even, for example, when an expert report provides a list of documents needed for the purpose of valuation, the court can still determine that the list is too long, or that the purpose of the plaintiff is not “really” valuation–after a shareholder spends a small fortune on litigation costs. Maybe SB 21 will provide some relief from this state of affairs.
  • Some regard the proposed changes to Section 220 as “raising the bar” and imposing more prerequisites for employing the statute. Maybe so.
  • Nonetheless, in my view, a welcome clarification that SB 21 brings to the table is a concrete list of documents or data that a shareholder is entitled to if the prerequisites of the revised statute are satisfied–that is, less indeterminacy.
  • The highlights of the proposed changes include: (i) a specific list of documents as compared to the current “guess work” about which documents must be produced; (ii) a three-year period prior to the request for documents that also removes the guess work about the period during which documents can be requested; (iii) codification of some requirements that the courts have imposed for years, such as allowing the condition of a confidentiality agreement prior to production.
  • The net result of SB 21 would be to give the court less discretion, though as a court of equity, the Court of Chancery will still be entitled to exercise its equitable powers.
  • I realize that there a limits to the powers of a court of equity. I weigh more of the pros and cons in the supplement below.

Supplement: The DSBA Corporation Law Council on March 3 proposed revisions to the recently debuted SB 21. The revisions to SB 21 include new proposed changes to Section 220–which are not covered in the above blog post about the original SB 21.

An updated SS1 for SB21 was passed by the Delaware Senate. A House vote, and a proposed House Amendment is scheduled for a vote on March 25, 2025.

Notwithstanding the various iterations of the legislation since it was first introduced, the commentary in this post still applies.

Professor Stephen Bainbridge, who has written extensively about proposed SB 21 within the weeks since its introduction, recently penned a scholarly analysis regarding the proposed revisions to SB 21 relating to Section 220.

I readily acknowledge up front that even the revised SB 21 would impose additional hurdles on top of the existing formidable roadblocks to the quest of a shareholder to obtain corporate books and records— to say nothing of the LLC analog. No changes to that statute have been proposed yet.

The good professor refers to the Yahoo case which involved a demand for extensive records in compliance with the Supreme Court’s repeated entreaties to use Section 220 before filing a plenary complaint. The newly proposed Section 220 might make it more difficult or impossible to obtain the same array of documents that were obtained in the Yahoo case. 

But even under the existing regime, it can often cost substantial 6-figures to litigate a Section 220 claim, which is intended to be a summary proceeding. There are published examples, e.g., the Wal-Mart case, highlighted on these pages, where each side spent millions of dollars to litigate a Section 220 claim. For nearly every Yahoo case, there are countless examples—under the existing statute, where a shareholder came up empty due to somewhat amorphous, nuanced defenses currently available.

If SB 21 is passed, companies will have more defenses to a Section 220 demand, and even with a more definite, itemized list of available documents, which I describe above as an offset to the new obstacles, many shareholders will decide that they don’t want to spend, or cannot spend, substantial 6-figures to fight for documents about a company they are invested in.

This post was prepared by Aimee Czachorowski, an attorney in the Delaware office of Lewis Brisbois.

Specific costs recoverable by a prevailing party is an oft-asked question in the Delaware courts. The Superior Court’s Complex Commercial Litigation Division recently addressed what expert fees and trial technology costs can be recovered by the prevailing party in NewWave Telecom and Technologies, Inc. v. Ze Jiang, et al., C.A. No. N-20C-09-215 VLM CCLD (Del. Super., Oct. 24, 2024).

Although the Court discussed an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to the applicable SPA, the Court’s discussion of allowable costs is of more widespread interest to practitioners. The Court indicated that expert witness fees were recoverable, but only for the portion of the expert’s time that was “necessarily spent in attendance upon the court for the purpose of testifying.” Slip op. at 9.

The Court also explained that: Time spent by the expert traveling to and from the courthouse, and time spent waiting to be called to the witness stand was recoverable. The Court also addressed what trial technology support costs could be recoverable.

Specifically, the Court allowed for: 1) Travel, lodging, and meals incurred while the expert was waiting to be called to testify (even while waiting to be called in rebuttal); 2) Time the expert actually spent waiting upon the Court—defined to mean the actual trial time plus an hour for travel to and from the courthouse; and 3) trial technology support for the actual trial time, not including preparation time.

Rolando Diaz of the Lewis Brisbois Delaware office prepared this post.

          The Court of Chancery refused to enforce a restrictive covenant in Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson, 2023 Del. Ch. LEXIS 580 (Del. Ch. Nov. 22, 2023). Chancery subsequently approved, with thorough reasoning, an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court–which makes its own determination whether to accept the interlocutory appeal.

BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND

          Sunder Energy, LLC (“Sunder”), a Delaware LLC headquartered in the State of Utah, a purveyor of residential solar power systems, had an exclusive dealer agreement with Freedom Forever LLC (“Freedom”), one of the nation’s largest installers. In the summer of 2023, Freedom encouraged Tyler Jackson, the head of sales for Sunder, who lived and worked in the State of Texas, to join Solar Pros LLC (“Solar Pros”), another solar power system dealer that referred installations to Freedom.  This led to a mass exodus of Sunder’s workforce. Nine of the twelve regional managers that reported to Jackson, as well as over three hundred sales personnel, joined Solar Pros.  On September 25, 2023, Solar Pros announced that Jackson had joined as its new President.

          Sunder asserted that Jackson—as a holder of Incentive Units—was bound by certain restrictive covenants (the “Covenants”) provided for in Sunder’s 2019 and 2021 LLC operating agreements (the “OA”) that applied to any Incentive Unit holder (the “Holder”).  The co-founders formed Sunder by filing a certificate of formation with the Delaware Secretary of State but did not execute a written operating agreement. 

In the fall of 2019, the two co-founders that together owned 60% of the membership interest of Sunder engaged a law firm to draft an LLC agreement that dramatically changed the ownership structure of the LLC; it imposed the Covenants, emasculated the minority members rights as owners, and reduced them to purely economic beneficiaries with very little rights. Communications from the majority co-founders to the minority rights holders did not explain that the two co-founders received common units with full rights while the minority holders received incentive units with little to no ownership rights. 

In a concerted effort to obfuscate reality, the majority co-founders referred to the Holders as “partners,” implying that there was some semblance of equal footing aside from the difference in percentage of interests. For the subsequent adoption of the 2021 operating agreement, the majority co-founders did not even bother to circulate a copy of the new operating agreement.  Instead they only circulated the signature page and indicated to the Holders that there were no substantive changes to the operating agreement and that the only change was the addition of a member.  This was not true.  The geographical scope of the restrictive covenant was also expanded.

          In addition to broad restriction on the use of Sunder’s confidential information, the Covenants in the OA prohibited a Holder from: (i) engaging in any competitive activity (the “Non-Compete”); (ii) soliciting Sunder’s employees and independent contractors (the “Worker Non-Solicit”); (iii) soliciting, selling to, accepting any business from, or engaging in any business relationship with any of Sunder’s customers; and (iv) inducing, influencing, advising, or encouraging any Sunder stakeholder to terminate its relationship with Sunder. Furthermore, each Covenant bound not only the Holder, but also Holder’s affiliates, defined in the OA as a Holder’s spouse, parents, siblings, and descendants, both natural and adopted. The Covenants applied while a person held incentive units and for two years thereafter.  However, a Holder had no right to transfer or divest themselves of the Incentive Units. In contrast, Sunder had the option, but not the obligation, to repurchase the Incentive Units for zero dollars upon either Sunder’s termination of Holder’s employment or if the Holder left the company without good reason.

          On September 29, 2023, Sunder terminated the dealer-installation agreement with Freedom and filed an arbitration to enforce their rights against Freedom. Sunder also filed an action in the Court of Chancery against Jackson and its competitors. Sunder sought a preliminary injunction enjoining Jackson and any party acting in concert with Jackson from taking any action in breach of the Covenants. The Court denied the preliminary injunction because Sunder could not establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.  The Court found (i) the restrictive covenants unenforceable under general principles of law and (ii) the competition and solicitation restrictive covenants unreasonable in their scope and effect.

KEY ANALYSIS

          First, the Court was faced with determining the Covenants’ governing law. The terms of the Covenants appeared in the OA, which governs the internal affairs of a Delaware LLC.  The OA expressly provided that Delaware law governed its terms.  Thus, a contractarian basis for the application of Delaware law existed. Under normal circumstances, the combination of the internal affairs doctrine and contract principles would require the application of Delaware law. However, for the Covenants, the drafters were not attempting to govern the internal affairs of a Delaware LLC.  Instead, the drafters were attempting to govern an employment relationship.  The Court opined:

Delaware follows the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, and Delaware courts consequently will not enforce choice of law provisions when doing so would circumvent the public policy of another state that has a greater interest in the subject matter. Consequently, when a different state’s law would govern in the absence of a choice of law provision, and if that state has established legal rules reflecting a different policy toward restrictive covenants, than Delaware’s then this court will defer to that state’s laws notwithstanding the presence of a Delaware choice of law provision.

Thus, either Utah, where Sunder is headquartered, or Texas, where Jackson worked and resided would apply in the absence of a choice of a law provision.  Under the Court’s analysis, both Texas and Utah approach the enforceability of restrictive covenants only slightly differently than Delaware. Under its conflict of laws analysis, due to the low degree of divergence between laws of the relevant forums, the Court applied Delaware law, finding that the conflict between Delaware and Utah law was a false conflict.

          Second, due to the circumstances for ratification of Sunder’s 2019 and 2021 LLC operating agreements, the Court determined that Sunder’s purported majority co-founders breached their fiduciary duty by failing to fully disclose all material information and making misleading partial disclosures to the minority.  The 2019 agreement materially and adversely impacted the rights of Sunder’s minority members; legal counsel only represented Sunder and the majority co-founders, but the co-founders made it seem as if counsel represented everyone. For the 2021 agreement, the co-founders told the minority members that the 2021 agreement contained no material changes and did not even bother to circulate a copy of the 2021 agreement to the minority members. Thus, the Court determined that due to the co-founders’ breach of fiduciary duties, the amended operating agreements themselves were invalid, and consequently, so were the restrictive covenants therein.

          Assuming, however, for the “sake of argument” that the amended LLC agreements were valid, the Court addressed the enforceability of two of the Covenants, namely, the Non-Compete and Worker Non-Solicit provisions. The Court found the Non-Compete provision extremely overbroad. The prohibited business activity covered a wide swath of the “door to door sales industry, without regard to whether Sunder markets or sells similar products.” The restriction on a Holder’s affiliates (as defined in the OA) was inane; it was not written in a manner that simply thwarts a straw man conferring the benefits to a Holder.  But, as written, a Holder’s “daughter cannot go door to door selling girl scout cookies.” Absurdly, the Covenants thus purported to bind a Holder’s wife and children. The geographic scope of the Non-Compete left only Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota available for a Holder as territory not restricted by the Covenants. Perhaps the most appalling factor of the Non-Compete was that since a Holder had no right to divest himself of the Incentive Units under the OA, the temporal component could continue in perpetuity. Similarly, the Court found the Worker Non-Solicit overbroad and unreasonable. It also applied to the same set of affiliates and for the same potentially “forever” time period. It extended not only to any current Sunder employee or independent contractor, but also applied to “any person employed in the past by Sunder for any period of time.” Individually, each overbroad provision was unreasonable.  And read together, the Court deemed the Covenants oppressive and refused to enforce them.

PRACTICAL TAKEAWAYS

          Delaware courts will not apply Delaware law under a theory of contract law if another state has a greater public policy interest in an issue when, absent a choice of law provision, another forum’s laws would apply. Circumstances may also dictate abandonment of the internal affairs doctrine when drafters embed employment provisions that have nothing to do with the governance of the entity into a governing agreement. Additionally, Delaware courts apply both general principles of law and a holistic analysis of restrictive covenants to determine reasonableness. This analysis can result in Delaware courts refusing to enforce restrictive covenants.

My latest column on legal ethics for the flagship publication of the American Inns of Court, The Bencher, addresses the titular topic. During the more than 25 years that I have penned the legal ethics column, this topic may be among the most challenging. That is, do the rules of legal ethics provide any guidance on how, if at all, to respond when one is falsely accused–especially of despicable acts or statements.

Courtesy of The Bencher, my latest article is reprinted below.

Do Legal Ethics Rules Provide Guidance for Responding to False Accusations?

The Bencher | September/October 2023

By Francis G.X. Pileggi, Esquire

During the 25 years or so that I have written this ethics column, the titular topic may be the most challenging among those I have addressed. If one is falsely accused of some despicable act, with no details and no opportunity to confront the unnamed accuser, do the rules of professional responsibility suggest how a lawyer should reply? Let’s be more specific.

What if an anonymous and amorphous accusation of racist behavior, without details of specific words used or other details, is recklessly repeated without an opportunity for the accused person to confront the accuser or rebut unspecified facts? How should the ethical lawyer respond? Most lawyers, and most reasonable people, would expect that such a serious false accusation, or repeating such a false accusation, should surely be actionable in some manner.

Those who weaponize the accusation of racism for improper motives continue to make it harder for those who seek to eradicate racism where it truly exists.

Those who believe in the approach of an “eye for an eye” may seek retribution. Adherents of Stoicism might counsel a “grin and bear it” approach. Christians may counsel a “turn the other cheek” response. Others may rely on karma.

Delaware Cases

Relatedly, a Delaware Supreme Court decision found that a defamation claim based on a member of the legal profession falsely accusing a lawyer of being a racist was barred by the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and observed that “it is clear to us that Americans disagree about a long and growing list of things that to some are racist and to others are not.” Cousins v. Goodier, Del. Supr., No. 272, 2021, Slip op. at 28 (Aug. 16, 2022).

Delaware’s High Court referred to the evolving definition of racism and cited to the recently updated definition of the word in a leading dictionary that now includes systemic racism, id. at n. 103, while also noting that the term “racist” has been used so variously as to have been “drain[ed]…of its former, decidedly opprobrious meaning” and to now “fit comfortably within the immunity for name-calling.” Id. at n.104 (quoting Stevens v. Tillman, 855 F.2d 394, 402 (7th Cir. 1988)).

When an accusation is made by an unidentified person, options may be limited. In 2005, the Delaware Supreme Court reasoned in Doe v. Cahill that only in certain circumstances can one force the disclosure of the identity of an anonymous online accuser.

An activist affiliated with Harvard Law School has described Christianity as a religion guilty of systemic racism, just as many have described our criminal justice system. So what do those charges mean for Christians or those who play key roles in the criminal justice system?

ABA Opinion

The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not provide clear direction on the titular issue. In 2021, the ABA issued a formal opinion on the related topic of whether, and how, to respond to online criticism. See Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 496 “Responding to Online Criticism,” American Bar Association (Jan. 13, 2021).

This opinion speaks directly to lawyers faced with online attacks. The opinion focuses on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct that advise lawyers how to respond to their client, former clients, opposing counsel, and opposing counsel’s clients. The ABA recommends that in these scenarios, the lawyer either not respond to the negative posts, respond by asking the person who is posting to allow for a private discussion offline, or respond by stating that professional obligations do not permit the attorney to respond. The committee noted that any response to the negative review or comment may be counterproductive.

In sum, there is no panacea for dealing with false accusations, especially anonymous ones. One goal is not to react in a manner that would run afoul of the aphorism that two wrongs don’t make a right. Although revenge might best be served cold, a Chinese saying provides that a person who seeks revenge should dig two graves: one for the person against whom revenge is sought and one for the person seeking revenge. Life is not fair.

Francis G.X. Pileggi, Esquire, is the managing partner of the Delaware office of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. He comments on legal ethics as well as corporate and commercial decisions at www.delawarelitigation.com.