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
The last two Privilege Points have addressed some federal courts’ inexplicable application in diversity cases of their host states’ substantive privilege law rather than their host states’ choice of law rules. Some states...more
Last week’s Privilege Point noted that some federal courts erroneously apply their host state’s substantive privilege law rather than properly applying their host state’s choice of law rules — which might result in another...more
Not surprisingly, federal courts handling federal question cases apply federal common law privilege principles (essentially textbook-type generic rules). Federal courts sitting in diversity cases must comply with Federal Rule...more
Last week’s Privilege Point described the illogical but scary Vioxx doctrine, which some courts apply to deny privilege protection ab initio to intra-corporate communications simultaneously seeking advice both from lawyers...more
Lawyers representing corporations all recognize the privilege waiver risk of disclosure to outsiders. But there are two huge risks to privilege protection even for internal corporate communications. Pointing to the “primary...more
Corporations risk waiving their fragile privilege protection by sharing protected communications with even the friendliest outsiders — such as their retained public relations consultants, etc. They must disclose some...more
The last two Privilege Points have described yet another losing effort to protect a data breach investigation and related communications. In Leonard v. McMenamins Inc., Case No. C22-0094-KKE, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217502...more
Last week’s Privilege Point described a data breach victim’s latest losing effort to claim privilege protection for its consultant’s investigation report. Leonard v. McMenamins Inc., Case No. C22-0094-KKE, 2023 U.S. Dist....more
In all but a few states, the attorney-client privilege can protect a company’s lawyer’s communications with former company employees — as long as the communications focus on the former employees’ tenure at the company. But in...more