Most lawyers know that state statutes or common law doctrines often protect communications between spouses – although there is wide variation in such approaches. But there is a lurking danger that all of us should keep in...more
Starting about 50 years ago in the case of Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D. Wash. 1975), some courts recognized a broad “at issue” waiver that could strip away privilege without the holder’s disclosure of or even reference...more
Last week’s Privilege Point described a Nevada federal court ruling that a lawyer’s testimony about non-privileged matters did not waive that fragile protection. Snow Covered Capital, LLC v. v. Fonfa, Case No....more
For obvious reasons, lawyers rarely testify at trial. The ethics rules normally prevent a lawyer from trying a case if she is “likely to be a necessary witness.” ABA Model Rule 3.7. And any lawyer’s testimony presents...more
Under every state’s ethics rules, lawyers not licensed there may temporarily provide legal advice under certain conditions, but normally may not establish a “systematic and continuous” presence there without violating...more
Normally a third party does not have standing to challenge a document subpoena. But what if the subpoena seeks discovery of the third party’s privileged or work product-protected documents in the subpoena target’s possession?...more
Last week’s Privilege Point described an S.D.N.Y. opinion rejecting privilege and work product claims for a document that on its face did not contain legal advice or any allusion to or analysis of anticipated litigation....more
Many if not most clients and even some ill-informed lawyers think they can “make” something privileged through some logistical step — such as marking it as “privileged,” copying a lawyer, inviting a lawyer to a meeting, etc....more
In some cases involving voluminous or complicated privilege issues, courts rely on special masters to make the privilege calls. Courts often call on well-respected private lawyers, or sometimes academics (which not...more
Last week’s Privilege Point described two cases finding that successful plaintiffs had waived work product protection covering their invoices and other attorney’s fees billing documents because they sought attorney’s fees as...more
Under what is called the American Rule, winning litigants normally pay their own attorneys’ fees. But in some situations, they can seek recovery of those fees from the losing adversary. Not surprisingly, such efforts...more
Every court seems to require litigants to log documents they withhold based on privilege or work product claims. Perhaps not surprisingly, hardly any log goes unchallenged by the adversary. Most of these disputes eventually...more
Lawyers frequently act as lobbyists. Not surprisingly, courts have a difficult time distinguishing between protected legal advice and nonprotected lobbying advice....more
In federal courts, it is nearly impossible to successfully file an interlocutory appeal of a trial court’s order requiring production of privileged documents — despite the obvious “cat out of the bag” nature of such rulings....more
Last week’s Privilege Point described an opinion requiring a corporate party’s witness to disclose communications with his Latham & Watkins lawyers, because he confirmed with that firm his own “commercial understanding” about...more
Unlike an intentional or unintentional express waiver involving actual disclosure of a privileged communication, a litigant can trigger an implied waiver by relying on the fact of such a privileged communication rather than...more
Aggressive plaintiffs sometimes try to generate a “side show” by challenging corporate defendants’ discovery responses (usually their document productions). Although federal courts have thankfully moved in the direction of...more
In both the federal and state judicial systems, judges assess privilege and work product protection claims — sometimes coordinating with judges at other levels. But there is a lurking unspoken risk that some lawyers may...more
Attorney-client privilege protection depends on a communication’s content — which must be primarily motivated by the client’s request for legal advice....more
Last week’s Privilege Point described one court’s incredible requirement that litigants identify everyone who learned of a withheld document’s content — even if they were not shown as a recipient....more
All or nearly all courts require litigants to log documents withheld on privilege or work product grounds (with an exception discussed next week). But they disagree about what the log should include — with some courts taking...more
For obvious reasons, the law encourages settlements. During settlement negotiations, participants may be tempted to disclose work product-protected documents or intangible communications. Can participants or even third...more
The last two Privilege Points (Part I and Part II) explained that the 1947 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), created a common law protection for litigation-related tangible and intangible...more
Last week’s Privilege Point explained that nearly every court extends work product protection beyond the “documents and tangible things” specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) and understandably mentioned in a recent Southern...more
The “work product” doctrine provides an entirely separate protection from the attorney-client privilege. Unlike the privilege, the work product doctrine is not ancient, normally not absolute, and not fragile. The many...more