Should corporate law firms be held more accountable in white-collar criminal cases?

This Reuters article on Sam’s appeal goes into some depth on how Judge Kaplan severely restricted evidence of reliance on lawyers’ advice:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/column-sam-bankman-fried-claims-trial-judge-botched-rulings-advice-of-counsel-2024-09-16/

The author says, “I’d argue that the 2nd Circuit’s consideration of Bankman-Fried’s advice-of-counsel arguments will have broader implications than fact-specific questions about FTX’s assets when it entered bankruptcy.”

I think that’s a bit misleading – the appeal itself observes how this ‘law firm acts as unconstrained arm of the prosecution’ phenomenon is a worrying, growing trend – but I do think it’s valuable to think about additional areas where the ruling on this appeal could have wider implications for the justice system.

“White-collar criminal cases, after all, often implicate guidance that defendants received from their lawyers. And lawyers who advise corporations will doubtless be interested to hear from the 2nd Circuit about whether their work might potentially surface in criminal trials.”