One of the form letters provided by UHG makes the controversial claim that  ”government-run health care will result in millions of Americans not being able to keep their current coverage and will lead to unintended consequences of higher premiums and less choice.”

A few commentators have suggested that UHG crossed a line: “Writing to employees on where they stand is probably common historically and part of corporate culture,” said Judy Dugan, research director at Consumer Watchdog. “Going so far as to send out form letters is crossing a line in terms of putting political pressure on your employees.” UnitedHealth has emphasized that participation is voluntary.

From a legal point of view,  UHG is certainly free to ask its employees to support the company’s position on proposed legislation as  employees of private employers have no first amendment right of free speech at work.  In most states, in fact, UHG could even fire those employees who refused to do so.  (New York is one of the few states that protects employees who express political positions outside of work.)  I’m not sure, however, that UHG wants to run the risk of alienating those employees who oppose the company’s position and support a public option.

As reported in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, there is a very interesting sideshow developing in the bankruptcy case of former auto mogul Denny Hecker: his attorneys are demanding that one of his creditors,  Chrysler Financial, return thousands of internal documents that Hecker alleges were stolen in 2008 by his former executive assistant, Cindy Bowser.  Chrysler Financial, owed nearly $400 million by Hecker, sued Hecker in July, alleging fraud and forgery over loan documents he submitted to obtain Hyundai vehicles.

Bowser apparently copied the emails and documents onto a flash drive while she was still employed by Hecker, and kept them after her employment ended.  She ultimately turned them over to Chrysler in response to a suboena that she received.  Hecker’s lawyer is arguing that Bowser had no right to the emails and likely violated the Stored Communications Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Hecker’s motion also requests that the court disqualify Chrysler Financial’s attorneys at Gray Plant Mooty Mooty & Bennett “based on their conduct in refusing to return stolen e-mail communications and documents” and failing to protect privileged information. Chrysler Financial received Bowser’s electronic documents last month as a result of a subpoena to Ms. Bowser.

Chrysler’s attorneys have argued that Bowser did not steal any documents because she was e-mailed directly on all correspondence to Hecker.  They also complained that Hecker’s attorney was immediately sent copies of Bowser’s e-mails, but  Hecker’s legal team never claimed that they were privileged.  They also sent a letter to one of Hecker’s former attorneys warning that unless he took steps in court to quash the trustee’s subpoena, Chrysler Financial would be forced to turn over the materials.

I obviously don’t have all the facts here, but at first glance it is hard for me to see what right Ms. Bowser had to remove and keep work-related documents after her employment ended.  On the other hand, it doesn’t look like the lawyers at Gray Plant did anything wrong.

Hat Tip: Seth Leventhal

My session will feature videos and audience participation.  Topics will include dealing with clients who lie, and collecting fees.  Since my clients never lie and always pay, I guess I’ll just have to make stuff up!  (Is that ethical?)