The work-product doctrine, of course, protects from discovery an attorney’s opinions, mental impressions, and thought processes. FRCP 26 (c). Federal Rule of Evidence 612, which applies to depositions under FRCP 30 (c), permits opposing counsel to receive, inspect, and ask questions about any “writing” that a witness uses to refresh her memory.
Full Answer
In California, the work product doctrine absolutely protects from disclosure to third parties writings that contain an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2018.030(a)).
Which of the following may not be protected under the attorney-client privilege? A client who orally confesses to a crime. Correct!
The attorney-client privilege is a rule that preserves the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients. Under that rule, attorneys may not divulge their clients' secrets, nor may others force them to.
The California Supreme Court held that witness statements collected by or at the direction of an attorney constitute at least qualified work product, as a matter of law.
Privileged and confidential communication is the interaction between two parties having a legally protected, private relationship. Law cannot force such parties to disclose the content of communication made between them.
Remember that conflict checking is not one and done, but an ongoing process. You check at the intake stage, when a new party enters the action, and when a new attorney becomes involved. Being proactive with ongoing conflicts checks helps to protect your client and to guard against malpractice.Nov 28, 2018
9 Taboo Sayings You Should Never Tell Your LawyerI forgot I had an appointment. ... I didn't bring the documents related to my case. ... I have already done some of the work for you. ... My case will be easy money for you. ... I have already spoken with 5 other lawyers. ... Other lawyers don't have my best interests at heart.More items...•Mar 17, 2021
The attorney-client privilege protects disclosure of a confidential communication between client and lawyer.
In general, as long as the prospective client is seeking legal advice or representation and reasonably believes the communication will be confidential, the consultation is privileged. This is so even if the would-be client never pays or hires the attorney.
Unlike interviews taken with an attorney's own client, however, the statements of percipient witnesses (not the attorney's client) will not be protected by the attorney-client privilege. Instead, such statements are afforded protection under the attorney work product doctrine.Mar 12, 2010
Are witness statements confidential? Not quite. Once your witness statement is served, it may only be used for the legal proceedings for which it is produced. the witness statement has been put into evidence at a hearing to be held in public, ie in open court.Apr 8, 2020
Mr Justice Twomey ruled that witness statements retained their privilege until they are “put into the public arena” and become evidence as part of court proceedings. He concluded that the mere service of witness statements on the other side in advance of trial was not sufficient to defeat the assertion of privilege.Apr 9, 2019
The last two Privilege Points described ways in which the work product doctrine provides less protection than the attorney-client privilege. However, in some situations the work product doctrine can apply when the privilege cannot. In U.S. Bank National Ass’n v.
The deposition transcript of other officers is simply a factual record which evinces no work product concerns. A summary of deposition may incorporate work product and such work product need not be revealed; however, the factual content would potentially be open to inquiry, as discussed above.") Case Date.
("Thomson is correct that the identity of the individuals its outside counsel selected to interview is itself protected work product. . . . But some courts have found that the identities of interviewed witnesses are fact work product that may be discoverable if there is a sufficient need for the information."; "Based on the newly submitted information, the undersigned finds that: (1) the disclosure of interviewee identities would reveal fact attorney work product; (2) the record does not support a showing of necessity and substantial hardship justifying disclosure; and (3) the information sought is not critical to the preparation of the DAPs' [Direct Action Plaintiffs] case and little would be gained by disclosure of the names of the 16 interviewees in light of the depositions and other discovery conducted to date.")
(holding that the plaintiff could inquire about defendant's investigator's initiation of communications with witnesses, but could not ask about the investigator's specific questions; " [I]t is not disputed that Trobe is an agent of counsel for the defendant, and therefore any fact work product he created in anticipation of the current litigation is protected. However, the plaintiff contends that the information sought from Trobe 'does not fall within the boundaries of attorney work-product doctrine,' since the plaintiff is seeking to explore the content of Trobe's communications to third parties. . . . the plaintiff asserts that he only wishes to determine the facts surrounding Trobe's conduct and communications with third party witnesses, and does not seek any information regarding defense counsel's mental impressions or legal strategy."; "We emphatically do not make any findings of any inappropriate conduct in this matter, but conclude that the plaintiff has made a sufficient showing to entitle the plaintiff to undertake a narrow line of questioning specifically designed to determine whether Trobe engaged in inappropriate conduct or coercion of the non-party witnesses, which does not run afoul of the work-product doctrine."; "Given the broad scope of discovery espoused in Rule 26, the court concludes that the plaintiff should be permitted to depose Trobe on the narrow issue of his alleged attempts to influence the non-party witnesses' testimony. . . . However, the court reminds both parties that Trobe 'is not required to supply counsel's view of the case, identify the facts which counsel considers significant, or the specific questions asked by [Trobe] during the investigation . . . as this type of information would fall under the category of mental impressions which are protected under Rule 26 (b) (3).'")
(holding that the work product doctrine did not protect the identity of documents a lawyer selected to prepare a deposition witness; "This court agrees with the two district judges and three magistrate judges from this district who have analyzed this issue and determined that the attorney's selection process does not result in material protected by the work product doctrine, and adopts the arguments and analysis of those cases.")
First, let’s focus on Tim. Why did he choose to do this? Wouldn’t it have been simpler to answer questions directly, and without obvious contempt for opposing counsel? No, not for Tim; he was so offended the litigation was happening in the first place that his indignation overcame his good judgement, and he lashed out at opposing counsel.
If you’ve got a witness who might want to outsmart opposing counsel, the most important task will be to uncover the motivation behind his or her testimony.
While there are no silver bullets for preparing challenging witnesses, understanding the goals and fears that lead to these behaviors is the first step to correcting the problem. Listen to your witnesses for possible red flags and try to address their concerns.