Morning Docket: 01.10.08

* SCOTUS gives cool reception to challenge of Indiana voter I.D. law. [New York Times; Washington Post; Slate (via How Appealing)]
* DOJ investigating award of a lucrative monitoring contract to John Ashcroft. [New York Times]
* Vioxx settlement plan looks like it will go through, but total cost could be higher than the advertised $4.85 billion. [Wall Street Journal]
* It’s not just the feds. State judges are unhappy with their pay too. [New York Law Journal]
* Another lawyer resigns from representing one of the Scruggs. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Dead man cashing? [New York Times]
Update / Correction: With respect to item #2 above, the DOJ is looking generally at how independent monitoring contracts are awarded. According to the Department, “[t]hese discussions were not prompted by United States Attorney Chris Christie’s selection of Attorney General John Ashcroft as a monitor. There is no inquiry into that selection.”
The DOJ’s full statement appears after the jump.


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE — STATEMENT ON INDEPENDENT MONITORS
The provisions in any agreement with the government to resolve criminal matters are highly specific to the facts and circumstances of a particular matter. This includes whether a monitor is appropriate and, if so, what the responsibilities of the monitor will be. These are matters negotiated between the government and counsel for a particular company. A provision for an independent monitor is not included in every agreement, nor is it used in the majority of corporate resolutions. It is very fact specific.
Monitors may be appropriate for various reasons. For example, if a company does not have the appropriate internal controls in place, an independent monitor may be appropriate to assure the government that compliance will occur within the company.
The Department of Justice has been having ongoing discussions about independent monitors for several months.
Due to the increased use of independent monitors in deferred prosecution agreements, and in order to obtain comprehensive input about the use of monitors, the Criminal Division and others within the Department solicited views from both within the Department as well as from experts outside the Department. For example, attorneys from the private bar, in-house counsel from companies who have had monitors, and former monitors have provided input to the Department about the work of monitors.
These discussions were not prompted by United States Attorney Chris Christie’s selection of Attorney General John Ashcroft as a monitor. There is no inquiry into that selection. Likewise, the consideration of guidance was not prompted by the actions of any U.S. Attorney.
The Department is currently considering whether policy guidance should be issued regarding the selection of monitors and scope of a monitor’s responsibilities to increase consistency in approach throughout the Department.
Peter Carr
Principal Deputy Director of Public Affairs
Department of Justice

Sponsored