Courts have been scrambling to catch up with the fast and sometimes unpredictable evolution of lawyers’ use of generative AI. Many if not most courts require lawyers to advise them if they relied on AI in preparing filings...more
Last week’s Privilege Point noted the Southern District of New York’s privilege expert’s opinion confirming the modern view that an extrajudicial disclosure of a privileged communication normally does not trigger a subject...more
Some courts understandably conclude that the anticipation of litigation that can assure work product protection also requires the litigant to impose a litigation hold on pertinent documents. Perhaps that is not a perfect...more
Corporate litigants’ privilege logs often trigger privilege disputes about internal corporate communications not involving a lawyer — because the log does not mention a lawyers’ participation. But there are at least two...more
In contrast to the somewhat abstract doctrine-driven attorney-client privilege, courts have described the work product doctrine as “intensely practical.” Their treatment of defendants’ surveillance videotape of personal...more
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
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
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
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
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
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