The work product doctrine states that an adverse party generally may not discover or compel disclosure of written or oral materials prepared by or for an attorney in the course of legal representation, especially in preparation for litigation. However, under Rule 26 (b) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , an adverse party may discover or compel disclosure of work …
Work Product Doctrine Definition Protects from discovery documents or material things prepared: • In anticipation of litigation or for trial; and • By or for a party or by or for a party’s representative Work Product Doctrine What Does it Protect?
CORNELL LAW REVIEW facts, 16 ordinary work product, 17 opinion work product,18 and legal the- ories. 19 Of these, only ordinary and opinion work product receive work product immunity. Section II also examines the specific exceptions to ordinary and opinion work product immunity.20 A separate subsection addresses the difficult problem of intangible work product, not explicitly
However, even if the work product protection is overcome, courts must still protect from disclosure the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney or other representative concerning the litigation. Like the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine's protections may also sometimes be waived.
Often stated as the work-product doctrine1 or even the work-product rule. Further, some present the privilege using a hyphen, as in attorney-work product.
According to the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, the “attorney-client privilege refers to a legal privilege that works to keep confidential communications between an attorney and his or her client secret.” On the other hand, the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute proclaims “the work product ...Mar 17, 2020
A legal doctrine that provides that certain materials prepared by an attorney who is acting on behalf of his or her client during preparation for litigation are privileged from discovery by the attorney for the opposition party.
Protects documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation by (or for) another party or its representative from disclosure to third parties.
attorneyProc. § 2018.030. Even though the attorney client privilege and the work product doctrine are similar in many ways, the holders of these privileges are distinct. Rather than the client, the attorney is the holder of work product protection.
Generally, work product is privileged, meaning it is exempt from discovery. However, there are exceptions. Work product is divided into two categories: ordinary and opinion.
In which of the following circumstances can an attorney reveal what would otherwise be protected by privilege? All of the above; Client sues for malpractice, lawyer is prosecuted for a crime related to representation or the lawyer is charged with ethics violation related to representation.
Emails prepared in response to possible litigation were not covered by the work product doctrine because they did not involve investigation of the claim or development of legal strategy, and were not part of a coordinated defense strategy with the co-defendant.Apr 13, 2020
A lawyer shall reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.
Which of the following may not be protected under the attorney-client privilege? A client who orally confesses to a crime. Correct!
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6) only requires that a privilege log contain a description of the nature of the documents withheld sufficient enough to allow opposing counsel to evaluate the privilege claims. However, some courts may impose additional requirements (see, for example, Bankers Sec. Ins.
“Work Product” shall mean all materials, data, works of authorship, concepts, presentations and reports in connection with Consultant's performance of the Services, including, without limitation, all intellectual property rights therein.
Attorney-client privilege is the most robust privilege in California Evidence law. The only circumstances in which the privilege does not apply is when the client is seeking legal assistance in carrying out crime or fraud, or if the attorney believes that the disclosure of the confidential communication is necessary to prevent death ...
An absolute privilege is given to writings that reflect “an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories” (CCP 2018.030 (a)). Such writing is not discoverable under any circumstances. There is qualified protection for all other work product.
The work-product doctrine is a judge-created doctrine, and as initially crafted, protected from discovery written statements, private memoranda and personal recollections prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation.1 The intention was to create a zone of privacy around the attorney so as to allow the preparation and development of legal theories and strategies with an eye toward litigation, free from unnecessary intrusion by his adversaries.2
Another tough issue is presented by dual-purpose documents — documents created for both a business reason and in anticipation of litigation. Work-product protection will not be afforded the document if it would have been prepared in substantially similar form or content irrespective of the expected or anticipated litigation. The pertinent question is what would have happened had there been no litigation threat—that is, would the party seeking work-product protection have generated the document if it were acting solely for a business-related purpose?12 To answer this inquiry, courts focus on the form, or content of the document and ask whether the document would have been prepared in substantially similar form but for the prospect of litigation. If this showing can be made, the privilege applies, but if the document would have been prepared in the same form regardless of the threat of litigation, the document goes unprotected.13
Contractors expect lien waivers to be submitted over the course of a construction project. Most states have standard forms that can be used to ensure these agreements are properly recognized in court. A recent federal case discussed the effect of leaving portions of a lien waiver blank, ostensibly to carry out the intent of an oral agreement.
Many provisions contain specific requirements, such as the parties agreeing to use a specific entity (like the American Arbitrations Association), the use of a specific number of arbitrators (typically one or three) and/or the distinction of what specific claims the arbitrator is allowed to decide (some provisions exclude fraud and other claims). All of these issues deal with an arbitrator’s jurisdiction to decide a claim.
In Georgia, the long-standing rule in real estate purchases is caveat emptor (“let the buyer beware”). There is one exception: a negligence action against a builder/seller. A builder/seller may be held liable in negligence where a dwelling is sold containing latent defects that the builder in the exercise of ordinary care knew or should have known and that the buyer could not have discovered in the exercise of ordinary care. Georgia courts have not previously addressed whether this exception applies to an ordinary seller of real estate who performs its own repairs on the dwelling (i.e., whether an ordinary seller who performs repairs is a builder/seller under the exception to caveat emptor).
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) evidences a congressional policy to encourage arbitration, and although parties are free to agree that state arbitration law applies, the state law may be pre-empted by the FAA if the transaction involves interstate commerce. In this case, the issue presented was whether an agreement to purchase real estate was a transaction in interstate commerce, and thus implicating the FAA, or one involving purely intrastate commerce. South Carolina courts had not previously addressed this issue presenting a case of first impression. In this case, two parties entered into a Home Purchase Agreement, which contained a Mandatory Binding Arbitration provision stating that all disputes should be resolved by arbitration. The purchaser initiated a lawsuit against the seller alleging numerous construction defects in the dwelling and contending that the arbitration clause was unenforceable under the South Carolina Arbitration Act because the arbitration clause was not on the first page of the Agreement and not identified by capital letters and underlining, all of which are required under the South Carolina Act. The seller contended that the arbitration clause complied with South Carolina law, and thus was enforceable, and alternatively that the arbitration provision was enforceable under the FAA because the sales transaction involved interstate commerce. The seller argued that the sales agreement involved interstate commerce because although it was entered in South Carolina: 1) it required the seller to obtain a warranty from a company in Georgia and to submit any claims to that company in Georgia; 2) the home mortgage was financed by a North Carolina branch of a bank; and 3) the contractor used subcontractors, materials and suppliers from outside of South Carolina. The lower court found the arbitration provision in the Agreement did not comply with the South Carolina Arbitration Act, and also found that the agreement was not subject to the FAA, as the seller did not sufficiently demonstrate that the transaction involved interstate commerce.
Looking at the totality of the situation, the court concluded that a dual-purpose document could nevertheless be subject to work-product protection if the document was created in anticipation of litigation and would not have been created in substantially similar form, but for the prospect of litigation.15
The work-product privilege or doctrine 1 originated in the seminal case of Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385 (1947, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that statements of witnesses obtained by an attorney prior to trial were privileged and thus protected from discovery. The Court reasoned that to allow otherwise would be contrary ...
But information and materials may be collected because a law or regulation requires it and, at the same time, it may also be collected in anticipation of litigation. Under these circumstances, the information may qualify as work product.