Internal discussions among Orrick’s chief legal officer and other firm lawyers about a conflict of interest remain privileged under federal common law, a federal magistrate judge for the Northern District of California has held, in quashing a third-party subpoena directed to the firm — even though the firm still represented the client at the time of the discussions. The opinion is the latest in the line of federal and state cases that have been developing a jurisprudence of law-firm privilege.
Don’t bcc your client on e-mails to opposing counsel, NY state bar advises
What’s ethical may nonetheless not be a best practice — timely advice from the ethics committee of the New York State Bar Association, which weighed in recently with an ethics opinion on the practice of blind copying your client on e-mails you send to opposing counsel.
The inquiry to the NYSBA’s Committee on Professional Ethics
Five legal ethics developments to watch in 2016
What was the most important development in the legal ethics arena over the past five years? I was honored to be asked by LexBlog, the folks who provide our blog platform, to share my views on this topic on the LXBN network, which has 8,000+ blog authors. But of course, the invitation also made
Fired GC fends off dismissal of retaliation claim, can sue individual director, says district court
A fired GC of a public company recently fended off dismissal of his whistle-blower retaliation claims in California district court. Adding to a split in authority, the chief magistrate judge for the Northern District of California held (1) that the protections of the Dodd-Frank Act applied even though the GC made his report internally, and
Seventy-four amicus firms weigh in to support in-house firm counsel privilege
We posted here about the in-house firm counsel privilege, and the New York case that held late last year that the privilege didn’t apply where a malpractice plaintiff was seeking to discover all relevant communications of his former lawyers.
The opinion in Stock v. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP is in the New York
Privilege for deposition break conferences?
It’s a scenario that all trial lawyers are familiar with. Your client is testifying at deposition. She gets a little confused and her testimony reflects it. After a line of questioning concludes, you request a break, leave the room with your client and confer. When the deposition resumes, your client changes her testimony, perhaps significantly.
No privilege for communications by risk manager who was also a lawyer
Corporate organization
charts increasingly include slots for departments with names like “risk management,” “claims handling,” and the like. When lawyers head or staff such departments, does the attorney-client privilege cover their communications with company management? Not necessarily, says a new opinion from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Casey v. Unitek Global Services, Inc.
Sex discrimination
In-house firm counsel privilege — will the favorable trend continue?
Two trial courts — in New York and New Hampshire — recently weighed in on the in-house firm counsel privilege. The New Hampshire Superior Court, in Moore v. Grau, recognized the parameters of the privilege. In contrast, the New York County Commercial Division judge in Stock v. Shnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP ruled
Privilege covers lawyer notes from GM ignition switch investigation, district court finds
Both in-house and outside counsel can learn valuable lessons from In re General Motors, a recently-issued federal opinion on the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. While some recent decisions have chipped away at the protections for attorney notes and internal memos, this opinion reaffirms that documents a lawyer creates during a corporate investigation will
Ohio Supreme Court proposes amendments to conduct rules
The Ohio Supreme Court will accept public comment until October 15 on proposed amendments to the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and the Ohio Rules for the Government of the Bar. Ohio becomes the latest state to consider incorporating some version of the Model Rule revisions that the ABA adopted in 2012 and 2013.
Here