A finished MGT-825 Topic 5 counsel threshold dq post example, stating a rule for involving counsel, applying it to two situations and using Upjohn to explain why timing affects privilege. Searches like "mgt 825 topic 5 assignment example", "mgt825 topic 5 sample" and "mgt-825 topic 5 example" land here.
What a finished MGT-825 Topic 5 counsel threshold dq post looks like
The finished post is one substantial contribution with a rule at its center. The rule has three triggers for calling counsel ahead of any statement or message: consequences that would be large or hard to reverse, contact with a regulator or opposing party, and facts that may later need to be investigated under privilege. Two composite situations test it. A competitor's letter alleging that a newly hired sales manager brought confidential pricing files meets all three triggers. Renewal of a standard supply agreement on unchanged terms meets none. Upjohn Co. v. United States explains the third trigger: the Supreme Court protected communications between company lawyers and employees gathered to give legal advice, so an inquiry run by managers alone may lack that protection. The strongest objection, that counsel is cheap insurance, is answered with cost and abdication.
How an MGT-825 Topic 5 example is structured
Four paragraphs and a reply make up the post, rule first and test second. The first paragraph gives the three triggers in plain language and explains why each matters to a manager rather than a lawyer. The second applies the rule to the trade secret letter and the contract renewal, showing why one crosses the threshold and the other does not. The third brings in Upjohn to explain the privilege trigger, along with the related practical point that adding a lawyer to an email distribution list does not make a business discussion privileged. The fourth states the insurance objection at full strength, grants that early advice is often cheap beside litigation, and argues that routing routine decisions to counsel slows the organization and hands management choices to someone accountable for different risks. The reply asks a classmate whether their proposed rule would ever leave a decision with management.
Three triggers stated before any case
Large or irreversible consequences, contact with a regulator or opposing party, and facts needing privileged investigation are named first, in terms a manager could apply.
One situation over the line, one under
The trade secret letter meets every trigger while the unchanged contract renewal meets none, which shows the rule separating cases rather than approving everything.
Upjohn explains the privilege trigger
Communications between company lawyers and employees gathered for legal advice were protected, so the post explains why who runs an inquiry can matter later.
Insurance objection granted and limited
The post concedes that counsel consulted early costs little beside litigation and argues that sending routine choices to counsel still carries costs in speed and accountability.
A reply that tests the classmate's rule
The peer response asks whether a classmate's proposed standard would ever leave a decision with management, pressing the thread toward an actual threshold.
Where marks go in MGT-825 Topic 5
Posts in this discussion usually lose marks for having no threshold at all. Recommending counsel whenever a situation seems serious gives a manager no way to tell serious from routine, which is the question the prompt poses. Some posts err the other way and treat the trade secret letter as a sales matter to be settled by phone, missing a situation where anything said may later be evidence. Upjohn is sometimes cited for a proposition it did not decide, such as the claim that any email copied to a lawyer is privileged. The insurance objection is often ignored, although it is the argument most classmates will raise. Replies that restate agreement without testing the other writer's rule contribute little, and in sections that grade engagement that costs participation credit.
Get an MGT-825 Topic 5 example written to your instructions
Send the MGT-825 Topic 5 discussion question exactly as your classroom shows it, with the rubric and any case or scenario attached. We write a custom example to those criteria, with a stated threshold for counsel, two situations tested against it, Upjohn applied accurately and a peer reply included, in 24 to 48 hours. Your first one is free.
MGT-825 Topic 5 questions, answered
What did Upjohn Co. v. United States decide?
The Supreme Court held that the attorney-client privilege protected communications between Upjohn's counsel and employees below senior management, gathered during an internal investigation so counsel could give legal advice. It rejected the narrower view limiting privilege to a small control group of executives. For managers the relevance is timing: involving counsel when an inquiry begins can affect whether its communications are protected later.
Does copying a lawyer on an email make it privileged?
Generally not. Privilege attaches to confidential communications made for the purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice, and courts look at the substance of the exchange rather than the distribution list. A business discussion with a lawyer copied usually remains a business discussion. Rules vary by jurisdiction and context, and the example states the general principle as coursework, never as advice on any real communication.
Is it wrong to involve counsel in routine decisions?
Not wrong, but costly when it becomes habit. Each referral adds delay and expense, and over time it moves decisions that belong to management onto someone accountable for legal risk rather than commercial results. The post argues for a threshold that sends the right matters early and leaves ordinary judgment with the manager, while acknowledging that organizations draw that line differently.