In one of Law & Order's "rip-from-the-headlines" episodes called "House Counsel," a juror in a mob trial is found dead. Law enforcement investigates and learns that the gangster tampered with the juror in order to avoid a conviction, then killed him to silence him. The lawyer who defends the gangster is a good friend of Assistant District Attorney Jack McCoy. Later in the investigation, McCoy discovers that his friend may have played a role in jury tampering. When he suspects his friend of being involved, McCoy sees an opportunity to catch the gangster and pursues the lawyer for the murder in order to exploit information on the gangster. In the end, the lawyer is found guilty and the professional privilege between the lawyer and the gangster is dissolved. In the case that allegedly inspired the episode, prosecutors decided to remove a gangster's lawyers from a case because there was evidence that the lawyers knew the crimes would be committed. Lawyers could therefore be called to testify. Prosecutors argued that the lawyers were in fact “lawyers” for the mob. The lawyers were dismissed. Law & Order, meet the modern in-house banking advisor. Since 2008, the banking sector has been subject to particularly close monitoring by regulators and law enforcement. This increased surveillance results in an increase in coercive measures against banks. As part of recent enforcement actions in other industries, law enforcement and regulators have taken action against in-house counsel personally. An effective way to mitigate risk for in-house counsel is to retain outside counsel to handle subpoenas and investigations, and work with in-house counsel on responses to formal and even informal government... ... middle of paper ...... the lawyer to reveal privileged information "to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial harm to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted of the client's commission of a crime or fraud for which the client used the lawyer's services", this can result in the creation of an uncomfortable working environment. So some prosecutors and regulators may ask: Are in-house counsel truly independent? Given the difficulty of meeting these unique challenges, in-house counsel are increasingly being targeted in government investigations and regulatory actions. This is especially true in cases where the government believes that in-house counsel was not acting as an attorney and may provide useful information against the client. In part two, we'll look at some of these examples.