Nancy Temple
Nancy Anne Temple is an attorney specializing in accounting liability. She was the in-house attorney for Arthur Andersen, who advised Michael Odom and David B. Duncan about Arthur Andersen policies regarding retention of documents from client engagements.[1][2] Duncan oversaw the shredding of Arthur Andersen documents concerning their work for client Enron, between October 22 and November 9, 2001 (See the Timeline of the Enron scandal). A memo written by Temple played a key role in the conviction of Arthur Andersen on charges of obstruction of justice. That conviction was later overturned.
Pre-Andersen
[edit]She graduated from the University of Illinois College of Business in 1986 with a Bachelor of Science in Accountancy.[3][4] After graduation, Temple attended Harvard Law School where she graduated with a Juris Doctor in 1989.[5] She began her career at Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, now known as Sidley Austin. She worked at the law firm for 11 years and was inducted as a partner. Temple specialized in accounting liability.
Arthur Andersen conviction overturned
[edit]On May 31, 2005, the United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Arthur Andersen in a unanimous decision.[6]
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the court, said the former Big Five accounting firm's obstruction-of-justice conviction was improper because the instructions at trial were too vague for jurors to determine correctly whether Andersen obstructed justice. "'[T]he jury instructions at issue simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing," he wrote. "[I]t is striking how little culpability the instructions required."[6]
In post-conviction interviews, several of the Arthur Andersen jurors indicated that the "guilty" verdict was partly based on an internal October 16, 2001 email from in-house Arthur Andersen attorney Nancy Temple.[7] The text of the email from Temple is as follows:
|
The Supreme Court's unanimous reversal of the conviction reinforces the opinion that the jury should not have inferred any liability on Arthur Andersen based solely upon the October 16 memo.[citation needed] Rather, Temple's bar license required that she not do anything that would waive the "attorney-client" privilege of Enron or Arthur Andersen. By having her name[citation needed] and a legal reference removed, in effect she was making the subject memo suitable for public disclosure – it was no longer a "privileged" document.[citation needed]
In addition, public accounting firms had a duty to notify the SEC within a defined time window if the accountants disagreed with a public accounting filing by a client. Temple's memo notes that the subject matter at issue was determined not to be of a nature that would require that Arthur Andersen to notify the SEC - i.e., a "Section 10A" filing, and her memo indicates that she will consult with the lawyers – again – to verify that conclusion.[citation needed]
Post-Andersen
[edit]Nancy Temple is married and has three sons.[5] After the Arthur Andersen case, Ms. Temple began working for Freeman, Freeman & Salzman P.C. law firm, now defunct.[8] On April 1, 2008, Temple returned to practice law at Katten & Temple LLP,[9] a firm she co-founded that specializes in litigation.
References
[edit]- ^ Strahler, Steven R. (10 April 2010). "Nancy Temple reclaims her reputation and rebuilds a career derailed by Andersen trial". Crain's Chicago Business. Retrieved 27 July 2017.
- ^ "Lawyer who wrote document memo quizzed". CNN.com. 21 January 2002. Retrieved 27 July 2017.
- ^ "University of Illinois Library: 1986 Bronze Tablet". Retrieved 2008-05-17.[permanent dead link]
- ^ "LinkedIn Public Profile: Nancy Temple". Retrieved 2008-04-03.
- ^ a b Glater, Jonathan D. (January 29, 2006). "Ten Enron Players: Where they landed after the fall". The New York Times..
- ^ a b Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005).
- ^ Kurt Eichenwald, Andersen Guilty in Effort to Block Inquiry on Enron, N.Y. Times, June 16, 2002, at 1.
- ^ Klein, Sarah A. (March 31, 2008). "Andersen Collapses: The ignoble demise of Chicago's top professional services firm signaled the end of an era. Here's what happened after Enron". Crain's Chicago Business. pp. 60–61..
- ^ "Legal Counsel and Services, Chicago, IL".