{\rtf1 \ansi {\colortbl; \red0\green0\blue0; \red255\green255\blue255; \red255\green0\blue0; \red0\green255\blue0; \red0\green0\blue255; \red0\green255\blue255; \red255\green0\blue255; \red255\green255\blue0; \red0\green0\blue128; \red0\green128\blue128; \red0\green128\blue0; \red128\green0\blue128;

\red128\green0\blue0; \red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128; \red192\green192\blue192; \red170\green170\blue170; \red85\green85\blue85; \red37\green37\blue37; \red119\green119\blue119; \red254\green254\blue0; \red203\green203\blue203; \red127\green127\blue127; \red20\green93\blue164; \red245\green245\blue245; \red71\green120\blue194; \red255\green255\blue102; \red229\green243\blue255; \red179\green218\blue255; \red187\green187\blue187; \red238\green238\blue238; \red240\green248\blue255; \red190\green190\blue252; \red245\green147\blue0; \red214\green214\blue214; \red255\green255\blue174; \red102\green0\blue102; \red102\green102\blue102; \red255\green255\blue204; \red255\green204\blue0; \red221\green195\blue236; \red182\green231\blue243; \red183\green242\blue206; \red255\green194\blue211; \red153\green255\blue102; \red204\green255\blue255; \red255\green210\blue183; } {\fonttbl { \f0 Arial;}{ \f1 Symbol;}{ \f2 Times New Roman;}{ \f3 georgia;}{ \f4 sans-serif;}{ \f5 serif;}{ \f6 Courier;} } {\*\generator Apache XML Graphics RTF Library;}

\fet0 \ftnbj \paperw12240 \paperh15840 \margt1080 \margb1080 \margl1080 \margr10 80 \headery720 \footery720 \itap0 \cols1 \sectd {\header { {\trowd \ltrrow \trleft0 \clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \brdrs \brdrw20 \brdr cf17 \clbrdrl \trql \clvertalb \clwWidth9380 \cellx9380 \clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \brdrs \brdrw20 \brdr cf17 \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth700 \cellx10080 \intbl {\ri0 \i0 \ql \fs18 \cf1 \f0 \li0 \b0 {\i0 \fs18 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f0 \b0 } {\i0 \fs18 \cf18 \f0 \b1 {\i0 \fs18 \sa0 \ul0 \cf18 \strike0 \f0 \b1 \sb0 A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT..., C837 ALI-ABA 59 } } {\i0 \fs18 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f0 \b0 } }\i0 \ri0 \fs18 \ql \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f0 \li0 \b0 \sb0 \intbl \cell \intb l {\ri0 \i0 \fs18 \cf1 \f0 \li0 \qr \b0 }\i0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \f0 \li0 \qr \b0 \intbl \cell \row } {\trowd \lastrow \trleft0 \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth10080 \cellx10080 \intbl {\ri0 \i0 \ql \fs18 \cf1 \f0 \li0 \b0 }\i0 \ri0 \fs18 \ql \cf1 \f0 \li0 \b0 \intbl \cell \row }}\par }{\footer { {\trowd \lastrow \trleft0 \clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrs \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \ clvertalb \clwWidth9300 \cellx9300 \clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrs \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \ clwWidth700 \cellx10000 \intbl {\ri0 \i0 \ql \fs20 \cf17 \f0 \li0 \b0 {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf17 \strike0 \f0 \b0 } {\*\shppict {\pict \pngblip \picw78 \pich10 \picwgoal1170 \pichgoal150 89504e470 d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000004e0000000a08030000002dbd985500000300504c5445fffffff ffdfbfffcf9fdfdfdfafafafffffefffcf8f6f6f6f3f3f3fffdfae2e2e2fff5e8fffaf3fff7ecffa 631bbbbbb7f7f7f7676766b6b6bffca849e9e9ef8f8f8ffbf6afffefdff9712fcfcfca4a4a496969 6ff9202ffb452fff5e6ff970dfefefeffad41e1e1e1ffe9cd949494ffe6c5fff6e96f6f6fffe6c6f febd0fff1e0d2d2d2ffd399ff950efff9f2ff9f26fff3e3fff9f0ffd092fff2e1ffb555ffe7c7fff 3e4ff8500ffe0b8ffb6558b8b8bffce8dffebd1ff9408929292ffddb0ff9c19ff9811ffb95cfff8e effecd3cccccc8e8e8effeed8ffa42d626262c9c9c9666666ffe2bcddddddfffbf7ffa32aff970ee aeaea686868dadadaffab3a9a9a9a6d6d6effe8c9878787e3e3e3ff9f20f5f5f5b7b7b7efefef868 686ffc77cffe4c1ff9912ffc272ff93056c6c6cffeed7ffd296ffab3d818181ff930aff9e1effaf4 7fffbf5fff0dbff9100cfcfcfff930cffeacf7a7a7affcf90f7f7f7fbfbfbffa835ff9814ffa32ef fe9cc676767ffc67afff2e2ffb048ff9509ffdbade0e0e0ffa939ffe5c3dcdcdcffc170ffe8cab3b 3b3ffb047f1f1f18c8c8cfffefeffecd4feedd7e8e8e8ffb656ffe2bbfff1df898989ff9b17ffcd8 affefdac3c3c3bdbdbdffe1baffc06cffa431fff7edf9f9f9ecececffaf44fff0dd787878ff9919d 9d9d9ff8f01ffd8a4727272737373e5e5e5ffe2bdffd9a7646464fffaf2ffdbab686b6effc172ffe 9caffe3c0ffdcafffc374ffc477ff981dfffdf9f5f4f2ffb34efff3e2ffe4bfff9e22ffa227fefdf dffc578f1eae1ffeccf6a6a6bff9102ff9201ff9101fffcf775797e7c7c7cff9203dedede5d5d5d6 b6c6dffbb60ffbc62707070ffa42bffd49bff9f29ffb04affefdcfff7ebf2f2f2ff950af6f2eeffd fb4696969ffd298ffddb2ff9916ffe1bcff9a0bffa128ffa329b0b0b0ff9d20ff9d23bfbfbfb4b4b 4ffb24bff9409ffd49c727375ffa62fffe3bedbdbdbb9b9b96a6a6a6e72776e6e6effaa39ffa024f fa324fffefcfff4e5ff9c29ffb351ff9f2bffe3bc919191ff8d03ffa42eff8f02fffaf4fffaf5ff9 000ffa22b9843d85d000000097048597300000b1300000b1301009a9c18000002f94944415478da6 33e95a6ba9b6145fce75b0c8c738f7e674000469effff94ef474d674003a271ebfb81141777f0656

46196999b9925be30c9143d6260ed71b36060d04fb444960f2b656160adb364c000f5698140d2396 b2d8aa8583d83c63757e6edfd8f8eb05c2aaa5af07572e68975da33e57731743dc9f30b5e7f2aaa7 a26b7d495df7e29d2e9b7dfae7b739fc159faf93fc67d39cf24d77b5c665067bcf487c39fe9d35fa 5ee4d0ca52f1c623803b74ebdc4747dc56606dd4927eee9306cd1fb9af989e9ee62d68d2c3d812bf 6b0787c946766906678f274bf5f95fb79a0cf1c1975189ce55e687e137eadc060f6eef732f9a267d 9ecca65920c4bf74edc55a9323d7e373343cd8aaf5bb927685c78e2c7fd756b72b7c4cde52fc2d64 e79bee2bfc8835d7c375efd4edefb60e7f4af6aff2eb19ee438d12a9075eff6f92d4a93e73a099c3 c6a5d2078ad74b7a2dbe55b1322f53608b77e616066d065babd73d7fbfedddedf9cf75dfb15fa826 d8d22efcb775ffe4c906afe23f6ebc7ef4382761ef2f14bbb27adcd79b8e0b7f6b1b2a2e2afcf56f df35862567859239d71fe8be737ecfc03ff7dfcb2ea0b03d0b853bdc7f337ff3ac117579ba8f4496 fd59f5b3c17aee60845ef7c789bf7a5e217e1b7d6cf04ef4f17b9bf76eb937ce5ab562a522553eef efcedf38d3175d3aa3dc5ff8b6fdcfdf76163ea7f063ed6770c20e3fe5b4a1dbef35754fe586ad41 99949b3167e7ff8f6997d6c6f8cc67df19b7c4b767cf9a3b9e7c9ec2fa72e4eb812de7ff7cccf49c b3453b632dc15fac5cc7d67f12bf7947bffb9ae9b38ec6510fffe196cdcbfcf776c0e00d3c549a34 de5ef3ebd60e4fb94f76fbe3aefde93fa4f1ff3eb1dac3a96bc6d91afec8c4dcbf62de08cb8f8f65 95154ea4f86bffcb378a630fefc732cf2c674068b1ad675d3755245affe071ac7a0b1f5d01186af1 62577775c559338eb20bf37fba9e4b4036b3a6ae51edd3eb5a780e3fc5d0fd588fab5ea978318645 6dc3c75fb8bc86d0686f7ed2b0e04293cb0d9df59fee5c45bd5363115a309e5071800dbb45cde95f 0d3420000000049454e44ae426082}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf17 \strike0 \f0 \b0 \sb0 \u169\'3f 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. } }\i0 \ri0 \fs20 \ql \sa0 \ul0 \cf17 \strike0 \f0 \li0 \b0 \sb0 \intbl \cell \int bl {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf17 \f0 \li0 \qr \b0 {\b0 \i0 \ul0 \fs20 \f0 \chpgn } }\i0 \ri0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf17 \strike0 \f0 \li0 \qr \b0 \intbl \cell \row }}\par } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \par}\sect\sbknone\pgncont\cols1{ \qj {\*\bkmkstart co_document_1}{\*\bkmkend co_document_1} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b0 {\*\bkmkstart I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab161d0e_Target}{\*\bkmkend I1a577cb1097f 11dc915dcad7ab161d0e_Target} \par } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f3 \li0 \qc \b0 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f3 \b0 \sb0 C837 ALI-ABA 59 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \qc \b0 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 American Law Institute - American Bar Association Continuing Legal Education \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \qc \b0 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ALI-ABA Course of Study \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \qc \b0 {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 May 20, 1993 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \qc \b0 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in the Federal Courts \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \qc \b0 {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_59_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_59_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *59 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF THE } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 ATTORNEY } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 CLIENT } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 PRIVILEGE } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \qc \b0 {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0116863401&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Alvin K. Hellerstein }}} \par } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \qc \b0 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \qc \b0 {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 New York, New York \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \qc \b0 {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 Copyright (c) 1990 (Rev. 1991, 1993), Alvin K. Hellerstein. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 I would like to express my sincere thanks to Andrew W. Schwartz for his help wit h the 1993 revisions and to Tania B. Isenstein and Amanda F. Schechter for their help with the 1992 revisions. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \qc \b0 {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_61_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_61_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *61 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Current Guidelines in } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege }

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 and Work Product Doctrine \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \qc \b0 {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 TABLE OF CONTENTS \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 I. The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 Defined, and Explanatory Policies Described \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Defined \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Purpose and Origin \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Work product Doctrine: Definition, History and Scope \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. Statements of Attorney Attributable to Client as an Admission \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 E. Expansions, Contractions and Policies \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 F. Commencement of Counsel\rquote s Function \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 G. Admissibility of Evidence Acquired in Breach of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 H. Availability in Congressional Investigations \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 I. Confidences Elicited by Imposter \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 J. Prohibition Against Evasion of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Relationship \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 II. The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 in the Corporate Setting - Who is the Client \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. The Broad Rule of Upjohn \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. The Earlier \u8220\'3fControl Group\u8221\'3f Test \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Its Rejection by the Supreme Court \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Underlying Facts and Supreme Court Relief \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. But No \u8220\'3fBlackletter\u8221\'3f Test \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Former Employees and Non-Employee Insiders \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Former Employees \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Lawyers\rquote Ex Parte Contacts with Employees of a Party \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (a) Present Employees \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (b) Former Employees \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (c) Problem of Imputing Information to the Corporation \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Non-Employee Insiders \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. State Retention of Control Group Test \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Upjohn and Work product \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. Officers\rquote and Employees\rquote Rights to } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. General Rule \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Work Product Application \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Implications of Special Counsel \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. Dean Sexton\rquote s Critique \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 III. Exceptions to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 - \u8220\'3fFor the Purpose of Committing a Crime or Fraud\u8221\'3f \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. General Policy of the Exception \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Lawyer\rquote s Innocence Not Relevant \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Burden on Movant; Whether Evidence Independent of Allegedly } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Material Must First Be Considered \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. In General \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. The \u8220\'3fPrima Facie\u8221\'3f Standard \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Other Formulations of the Standard \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. Communications Must Facilitate Crime or Fraud \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. Distinguishing Past from Ongoing Fraud \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

E. Ongoing Fraud and Work product \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 F. Counsel\rquote s Wrong \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 G. Counsel\rquote s Ethical and Professional Obligation \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. SEC \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Savings & Loans \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Conclusion \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 H. Political } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Exposures -- Environmental and Tax Implications \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 I. Corporate Counsel\rquote s Duty Under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to Disclose Information Imparted by Corporate Intermediaries in Confidence \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Discussion

\par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Suing a Former Attorney in the Context of Litigation Against the Client \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 J. Counsel\rquote s Ethical and Professional Obligation to Tribunals and Third P arties \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 K. Counsel\rquote s Ethical and Professional Improprieties Not Basis of Claim \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 L. Exception for Abuse of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Identity of Potential } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Defendant \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Custody \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Whereabouts of Client

\par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. Bail-Jumping \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 M. Client\rquote s Insistence on Perjury \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Conflicts with ABA Ethics Opinions \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. ABA Model Rule \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Sixth Amendment Concerns \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 N. Further With Regard to Relations Between Court and Counsel \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 O. Counsel\rquote s Scope in Preparing Witnesses \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 IV. Exceptions to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 - Where the Client Owes a Fiduciary Obligation with Reference to the Advice \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 V. Exceptions to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 -- Clearing Name \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. Right to Divulge Confidential Information \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Right Does Not Extend to Suing for a Class or for Gain \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Third-Party Subpoenas \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 VI. Inapplicability of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 - Fees, Non-Legal Advice; Extra-Legal Employments \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. Fee Arrangements and Miscellaneous Aspects of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Relationship \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 May Exist Where Circumstance are Exceptional \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Client\rquote s Demeanor Not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Policy Forbidding Prosecutor to Co-Opt Investigative Work of Defense Counsel \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. Testimony of Counsel \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

B. Subpoenas to Counsel and Changing Policies and Statutes Regarding Forfeitures \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. The Second Circuit \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. The First Circuit \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Fee Source Inquiries \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. IRS Subpoenas Regarding Cash Payments \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 5. United States v. Gotti \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 6. Forfeitures and Implications with Regard to Fees and Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 7. Lawyers as Informants \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 VII. Inapplicability of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 -- Facts Learned by an Attorney from Sources Other than the Client; Efforts to

Establish Analogous } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb200 Privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. Counsel\rquote s Advice May Not Be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 if Factual Communications of Client Are Not Implicated \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Absent Work Product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , Facts Learned by Counsel from Independent Services or His Own Research Are Not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Information from Third Parties \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Federal vs. State Law \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Work Product \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Advocacy for Self-Evaluative } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. No } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 for Auditors\rquote Reserves for Contingent Liabilities \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 VIII. Inapplicability of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 - Considerations of Fairness \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. Pleading Reliance on Advice of Counsel

\par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Habeas Corpus \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Patents \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Using the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 as a Sword and a Shield \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. Duress \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 5. Statute of Limitations \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 6. Denial of Plaintiff\rquote s Allegations \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 7. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Review of Waived Communication \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Selected Invocations of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRER612&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 FRE 612 }}} \par } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. Settlement Conversations \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 E. Work Product and Recorded Testimony \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Visual Work Product of Injured Plaintiffs \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Work Product and Audio Tapes of Testimony \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 IX. Loss of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 - Waiver \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. Confidentiality Essential to } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Deliberate Waivers \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Knowing and Intentional \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Confidential Communications Incident to a Document that is to be Disclosed to Others \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Disclosure in Response to Subpoenas \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (a) Disclosure to Government Agencies \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (b) Producing Documents Protected From Discovery by the Work Product Doctrine to Government Agencies \par

} } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (c) Third Circuit \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (d) SEC Recommendations \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. Disclosures to Gain Advantage, in Litigation or Otherwise \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (a) Selective Disclosures \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (b) Admissions Binding Clients \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 5. Waivers by Trustees and Receivers \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 6. Reports by Special Counsel \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 7. Presumptive Loss of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 if Affected Papers are in Corporate Files \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 8. Implications of Use of Experts to Evaluate Information or to Assist Counsel \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 9. Criticism \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 10. Additional Instances of Employment Experts \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 11. Failure to Claim } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in Accordance with Required Procedures \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 12. Intention to Waive at Trial, and Implications for Depositions \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 13. Waiver is Irreversible \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 14. Corporate Work Product and the Aggregation of Case Reserves \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 15. Corporate Analysis and } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege }

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 for Underlying Facts \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Inadvertent and Unavoidable Breaches of Confidentiality \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. General \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Inadvertent Production of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Documents \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (a) } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (b) Work product \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Agreements Between Parties \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. Form of Such Agreement \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. Right of Counsel to Waive Where Client Disabled or Dead \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 X. \u8220\'3fCommon Interest\u8221\'3f Exceptions to Waiver \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. Common Interest and Work Product \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Mergers \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Sharing Investigative Information \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. Insurance \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 E. Inter-Defendant Communications \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 F. Sixth Amendment \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 XI. Issues of Work Product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb200 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. Overcoming the Work Product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Loss of Work Product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Developed in a Prior Case \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 XII. Procedure to Resolve Contested Claims of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb200 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. In Camera Inspections \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Abstracts \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Pre-Adjudication Review By Opposing Counsel \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. Documents Containing } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and Non} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Material \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 E. Crime or Fraud Exception \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 F. Appeal Procedures \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 G. Mandamus \par

} } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 XIII. Inferences Arguable to Jury \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 XIV. Ability of Counsel to Represent More than One Defendant and Defense Strateg ies in Multiple Defendant Cases \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. Professional Codes \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Joint Defense } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Joint Defense Agreements \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. The Right to Counsel of One\rquote s Choice \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (a) Wheat v. United States \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (b) Court of Appeals \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

(c) Habeas Corpus \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Second Circuit \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. New York State \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. Fifth Amendment Plea on Suggestion of Another Client\rquote s Counsel \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 E. Conflicts in a Corporate Setting: Simultaneous and Successive Representation of a Company and its Personnel \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 F. Conflicts in a Corporate Setting: Representation Against a Former Client \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 G. Agency Sequestration Rules and Multiple Representation \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 H. Disqualification Not Subject to Interlocutory Appeal \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 I. Conflicts in Representation of Insureds \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 J. Conflicts in Derivative and Class Actions \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj

{\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_71_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_71_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *71 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 I. The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 Defined and Explanatory Policies Described. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Defined. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj

{\i0 \fs20 The } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3fprovides limited protection to communications from the client by proh ibiting their unauthorized disclosure.\u8221\'3f Model Rules of Professional Con duct, Rule 1.6, comment at 90 (2d ed. 1992). The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 applies only if: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. The asserted holder of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is or sought to become a client;

\par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. The person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is actin g as a lawyer; \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. The communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 a) by his client \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 b) without the presence of strangers \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 c) for the purpose of securing primarily either \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li540 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (i) opinion on law, or \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li540 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (ii) legal services, or \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li540 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 d) for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 has been \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 a) claimed and \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 b) not waived by the client. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1950119829&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_358" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357, 358-59 (D. Mass. 1950 ) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; see also 8 Wigmore, Evidence \u167\'3f 2292 at 554 (3d ed. 1961). Fed. R. Evid . 501 incorporates state rules of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to govern state claims and a federal common law for federal claims. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Purpose and Origin. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

The } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is \u8220\'3fborn of the law\rquote s own complexity.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975108622&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 406 F. Supp. 381 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . It is \u8220\'3fdesigned \lquote to facilitate the ad} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_73_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_73_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *73 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ministration of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \rquote in order \lquote to promote freedom of consultation of legal advisors b y clients,\u8221\'3f\rquote

} {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1968104759&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_691" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Natta v. Hogan 392 F.2d 686, 691 (10th Cir. 1968) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , and to encourage persons \u8220\'3fto seek legal advice in planning their affa irs to avoid litigation as well as in pursuing it.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976102535&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_513" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 70 F.R.D. 508, 513 (D. Conn.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , appeal dismissed, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976146265&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 534 F.2d 1031 (2d Cir. 1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Its origin is ancient, having been recognized in the time of Elizabeth I in the code of honor of the English lawyer who simply refused to turn informer against his client. It is said to be the oldest of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981101939&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_389" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (citing 8 Wigmore, op. cit., \u167\'3f 2290). Initially the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was that of the attorney, as it was his honor upon which the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was based. In the early 1700s, \u8220\'3fwhen the desire for } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 truth } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 overcame the wish to protect the honor of witnesses\u8221\'3f, the client becam e the holder of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1962100965&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_15" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Colton, 201 F. Supp. 13, 15 (S.D.N.Y. 1961) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1962115446&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 306 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1962) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1963202635&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 371 U.S. 951 (1963) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Presently, the policy for the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is to encourage clients to be completely truthful with their attorneys to enabl e their cases to be honestly and effectively litigated and \u8220\'3fthereby pro mote broader public interest in the observance of law and administration of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 .\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981101939&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_389" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. at 389; }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975107594&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_369" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Grand Jury Investigation, 401 F. Supp. 361, 369-70 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (W.D. Pa. 1975). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 rests on the belief that in an adversary system, a client\rquote s full disclos ure to an attorney is a necessary predicate to skillful advocacy and fully infor med legal advice. The existence of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 thus allows attorneys to assure clients that any information given to their att orneys will remain confidential. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992093260&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_165" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Chase Manhattan Bank v. Turner & Newall, 964 F.2d 159, 165 (2d Cir. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . It is essential for the policy to encourage complete forthrightness with one\r quote s attorney, for \u8220\'3f[w]ithout knowing all the facts about the client \rquote s legal problems the lawyer will be unable to give competent legal advic e, and the administration of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 will suffer either because of the perpetuation of meritless litigation or nonco mpliance with the law.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1000059&cite=NYCPS4503&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. 4503 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

, C.4503:1 (McKinney\rquote s 1992). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_74_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_74_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *74 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Work product Doctrine: Definition, History and Scope. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The work product doctrine arises out of the need to provide an attorney with a \ u8220\'3fcertain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1947115463&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_510" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510 (1947) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . It protects \u8220\'3fintangible things, the results of the lawyer\rquote s us e of his tongue, his pen and his head, for his client.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1946113883&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_223" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hickman v. Taylor, 153 F.2d 212, 223 (3d Cir. 1945) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1947115463&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 329 U.S. 495 (1947) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . It provides an attorney with a \u8220\'3fzone of privacy\u8221\'3f within whic h to think, plan, weigh facts and legal theories, and prepare a case. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982102989&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_142" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

James Julian, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 93 F.R.D. 138, 142-43 (D. Del. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (citing } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980112494&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_864" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 864 (D.C. Cir. 1 980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977125628&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hercules, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 434 F. Supp. 136 (D. Del. 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is intended to aid trial preparation. Disclosure of work product does not waive the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ends only if disclosure to a third party \u8220\'3fsubstantially increases the likelihood that an adversary will obtain the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged

} } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information.\u8221\'3f Shulton, Inc. v. Optel Corp., No. 85-2925, slip op. at 1 0 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 1987) (Sarokin, D.J.) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. The history of the work product doctrine, first, stated authoritatively by } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1947115463&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_495" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. at 495, }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 but with earlier roots and later expression in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCPR26&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , is extensively treated in an excellent student Note, The } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0105000725&pubNum=1111&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Work Product Doctrine, 68 Cornell L. Rev. 760 (1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , and see the introduction, Clermont, Surveying Work Product, 68 Cornell L. Rev. 754 (1983). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Hickman considered that a lawyer\rquote s research, analysis and mental impre ssions deserved special protection. Production of these private papers is rarely ordered, only upon a strong showing of need. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1969113026&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 La Rocca v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 47 F.R.D. 278 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (W.D. Pa. 1969).

\par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. The protection applies to material \u8220\'3fassembled and brought into being in anticipation of litigation.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982134212&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. El Paso Co., 682 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984216331&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 466 U.S. 944 (1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Materials \u8220\'3fassembled in the ordinary course of business, or pursuant to public requirements unrelated to litigation\u8221\'3f are not protected. Advi sory Committee Notes to the } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0292103225&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_501" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 48 F.R.D. 487, 501 (1969) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_75_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_75_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *75 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Litigation, however, need not be imminent as long as the purpose behind the doc ument was to aid in possible future litigation. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981103747&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1040" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028, 1040 (5th Cir. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981240877&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1

.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 454 U.S. 862 (1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The doctrine does not require the party to know who would sue it or on what th eory; \u8220\'3fthe prospect of litigation\u8221\'3f has to be \u8220\'3fsuffici ently strong to bring the materials within the doctrine.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982102989&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_143" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 James Julian, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 93 F.R.D. at 143 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (citing } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979113305&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1229" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Investigation, 599 F.2d 1224, 1229 (3d Cir. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ). The work product doctrine is a qualified immunity, \u8220\'3fdesigned to bala nce the needs of the adversary system to promote an attorney\rquote s preparatio n against society\rquote s general interest in revealing all facts relevant to t he resolution of a dispute.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988111962&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_273" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Sealed Case, 856 F.2d 268, 273 (D.C. Cir. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The case involved work product based on oral statements taken from witnesses. \u8220\'3f[A] far stronger showing is required than the \lquote substantial need \rquote and \lquote without undue hardship\rquote standard applicable to disco very of work product protected documents and other tangible things.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. Statements of Attorney Attributable to Client as an Admission. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The statements of counsel in pleadings and perhaps in briefs and argument, may b e attributable to the client as an admission. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRER801&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab

161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991055596&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. GAF Corp., 928 F.2d 1253, (2d Cir. 1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the court held that it was reversible error not to allow the defendant to cros s examine on the basis of the government\rquote s assertions in an earlier, and withdrawn, bill of particulars. Although the government had the right to withdra w the bill, statements in that bill, if relevant, could be the subject of commen t in arguing against conviction. Following a line of cases, the Second Circuit h eld that statements made by an attorney concerning a matter within his employmen t may be admissible against his client, and that rule applies as well with regar d to the government. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984132185&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. McKeon, 738 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981143632&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_142" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Margiotta, 662 F.2d 131, 142 (2d Cir. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&pubNum=780&cite=761US913&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&t ransitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 761 U.S. 913 (1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989120338&pubNum=162&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 State v. Schubert, N.J. Super. 212, 561 A.2d 1186 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____,

} {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990076496&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 110 S. Ct. 2600 (1990) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . With regard to an indictment, however, since the indictment is not a pleading of the United States, but the charge of a grand jury, there is no basis for attr ibution. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_76_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_76_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *76 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 E. Expansions, Contractions and Policies. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. California law has been interpreted to give work product protection also to c ounseling in the course of contract negotiations, regardless that litigation may not be imminent. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983127297&pubNum=227&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rumac, Inc. v. Bottomley, 143 Cal. App. 3d 810, 192 Cal. Rptr. 104 (1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (interpreting } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1000201&cite=CACPS2016&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code \u167\'3f 2016 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (B) (West 1983)). The court ruled that the lawyer\rquote s role in avoiding liti gation is at least as socially useful and important as is his role as an advocat e. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. But \u8220\'3f[T]he

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 remains an exception to the general duty to disclose. Its benefits are all indi rect and speculative; its obstruction is plain and concrete. . . . It is worth p reserving for the sake of a general policy, but is nonetheless an obstacle to th e investigation of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 truth } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . It ought to be strictly confined within the narrowest possible limits consiste nt with the logic of its principle.\u8221\'3f 8 Wigmore, Evidence 2292 at 554 (M cNaughton Rev. 3d ed. 1961); see also Burke, The } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0101377948&pubNum=1105&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_1105_243" }{\fl drslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Duty of Confidentiality and Disclosing Corporate Misconduct, 36 Bus. Law. 239, 2 43 n.13 (1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (quoting Jeremy Bentham, Rationale of Judicial Evidence (1827), to the effect t hat the guilty deserve no } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and the innocent have nothing to hide). See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974127252&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_709" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709-10 (1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3fThe need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is bo th fundamental and comprehensive . . . . [ } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 P]rivileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 against forced disclosure . . . . [as] exceptions to the demand for every man\r quote s evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 truth } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 .\u8221\'3f) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. But elsewhere it has been said: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 It is true that litigation is no longer a game of hide and seek, and also true t hat } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is to a large extent equated with } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 truth } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . But if attorneys may not freely and privately express and record mental impres sions, opinions, conclusions, and legal theories, in writing, and clients may no t freely seek them, then there is } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice }

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 for no one, and } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 truth } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , instead of being more readily ascertainable, will become lost in the murky rec esses of the memory in the minds of men . . . . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_77_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_77_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *77 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974113239&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_736" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 509 F.2d 730, 736 (4th Cir. 1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975241273&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 420 U.S. 997 (1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3fwork product\u8221\'3f } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ).

\par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Fourth Circuit limited the application of the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to \u8220\'3fmental impressions\u8221\'3f in preparation of litigation. \u8220\ '3f[M]aterials prepared in the ordinary course of business or pursuant to regula tory requirements or for other non-litigation purposes are not documents prepare d in anticipation of litigation within the meaning of } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCPR26&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rule 26(b)(3) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ,\u8221\'3f and thus, are not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992112257&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_984" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 National Union Fire Ins. v. Murray Sheet Metal, 967 F.2d 980, 984 (4th Cir. 1992 ) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In the case of industrial incidents, investigations occur for safety preventio n as well as in anticipation of litigation. Therefore, the purpose of the invest igation must be determined before blindly applying the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Id. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. To what extent may unnamed class members claim the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 / } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 for the purpose of shielding communications they had with counsel? To insure th at the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 exists, in any communications with a possible class member, the attorney should indicate that he is acting on behalf of the class. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974104645&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Sayre v. Abraham Lincoln Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass\rquote n, 65 F.R.D. 379 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (E.D. Pa. 1974); }

{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983146079&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Penk v. Oregon State Board of Higher Educ., 99 F.R.D. 511 (D. Or. 1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987125684&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 484 U.S. 853 (1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 5. Does the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 extend to lay documents in the possession of counsel? In preparing for litigati on the work product doctrine will not protect from discovery those documents tha t could have been prepared by a layman. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987003149&pubNum=602&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Bloss v. Ford Motor Co., 126 A.D.2d 804, 510 N.Y.S.2d 304 (3d Dep\rquote t 1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (where manufacturer could not show that indexing of documents relating to desig n and development of vehicle involved in injury claim did not involve any partic ular legal skill, the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 could not exist). Courts have held, however, that the selection and compilation of documents by counsel for litigation purposes is protected opinion work produ ct. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1986158987&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (requiring opposing counsel at deposition to acknowledge existence of documents that counsel has selected and compiled from voluminous files in preparation for products liability litigation is tantamount to requiring her to reveal legal th eories and opinions and is barred by work product doctrine). But see Note, The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_78_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_78_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *78 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0102924646&pubNum=1235&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_1235_670" }{\fl drslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Attorney-Work Product Doctrine: Approaching Absolute Immunity?--Shelton v. Ameri can Motors Corp., 61 St. John\rquote s L. Rev. 658-70 (1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (arguing that the Shelton holding could lead to a dilution in the United States District Court\rquote s regulatory power over discovery proceedings and encoura ge a reversion to trial by surprise). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992064208&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. John Doe, 959 F.2d. 1158 (2d Cir. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (A client\rquote s confidences are not revealed by the production of telephone records. The comprehensive scope of the subpoena will prevent the revealing of t he attorney\rquote s selection process.); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985120086&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312 (3d Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1985251042&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 474 U.S. 903 (1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Attorney\rquote s work product would be revealed by requiring the production o f a handful of a large volume of documents previously produced in their entirety . The handful of documents represent those documents selected by counsel to prep are an expert witness. The court ruled that separate production of these documen ts, none of which was work product, would reveal counsel\rquote s thought proces s.); but see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987097532&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_680" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Gould, Inc. v. Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co., 825 F.2d 676, 680 (2d Cir. 1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Sporck may be inapplicable where the files from which counsel culled documents are not available to or beyond reasonable access of the opposing party.); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992118268&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Minebea Co., Ltd., 143 F.R.D. 494 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Recognizing that Gould requires real, not speculative, concern over the exposu re of counsel\rquote s thoughts to uphold the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 on documents used to prepare for depositions. The court ruled that the necessar y showing was not made, but, in the interest of protecting counsel\rquote s thou ghts, deponent would only be required to answer questions about the documents us ed in preparation, not from where the documents were obtained.). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 6. Interviews and Consultation. The identity of opposing counsel\rquote s non-te stifying experts should generally be protected from discovery, although some cou rts have required identification. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986157412&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Pizza Time Theatre Sec. Litig., 113 F.R.D. 94 (N.D. Cal. 1986)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . (The court distinguished between \u8220\'3f(1) information known and opinions held by experts and (2) trial preparation decisions made by lawyers.\u8221\'3f) The Advisory Committee Notes to the 1970 amendments to } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCPR26&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 say it is ill-considered to bring the former within the work product doctrine a nd, the Pizza court reasoned, that a lawyer\rquote s decision about which people to use in which capacities in preparing a case for trial is right at the center of the kind of material } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_79_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_79_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *79 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 protected by } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCPR26&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 rule 26 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986157412&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 98 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976126032&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Baki v. B.F. Diamond Constr. Co., 71 F.R.D. 179 (D. Md. 1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (names of experts retained in anticipation of litigation who are not expected t o testify may be obtained without any special showing of exceptional circumstanc es). The Baki court based its decision on } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCPR26&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab

161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(B)(1) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3fparties may obtain discovery of . . . the identity and location of p ersons having knowledge of any discoverable matter\u8221\'3f). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In a further enlargement of the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , a Massachusetts court held that the doctrine protects from discovery the ident ities of persons interviewed by a client\rquote s attorney as well as the dates and places of those interviews. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986147600&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Massachusetts v. First Nat\rquote l Supermarkets, Inc., 112 F.R.D. 149 (D. Mass. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court there made a fine distinction between an interrogatory which asked f or the \u8220\'3fidentifications of persons with knowledge\u8221\'3f and the \u8 220\'3fidentification of persons interviewed.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986147600&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 152 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Under } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCPR26&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and Upjohn, the former is clearly discoverable. Hickman and its progeny, howeve r, support the distinction. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1968112648&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. King, 45 F.R.D. 521 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (W.D. Okla. 1968); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985103911&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Board of Educ. of Evanstown Tp. v. Admiral Heating & Ventilating, Inc., 104 F.R. D. 23 (N.D. Ill. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (to give plaintiff the identity of counsel\rquote s interviewees and the dates and places of those interviews is to afford plaintiff } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3fsignificant insights into the defense lawyer\rquote s preparation of t heir case (and thus their mental processes)\u8221\'3f. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985103911&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 32 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 7. A Michigan court has extended the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to information contained in drafts, and originally transmitted without the inte ntion that it would be kept confidential. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988024882&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Schenet v. Anderson, 678 F. Supp. 1280 (E.D. Mich. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ( } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 extends to all information not actually published to third parties, even though it was disclosed in connection with the preparation of a document to be issued to third parties). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 F. Commencement of Counsel\rquote s Function. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991116017&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 111 S. Ct. 2720 (1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the Supreme Court reversed the finding that defense counsel\rquote s out of co urt statement, here a press conference, violated the Nevada code of professional responsibility, finding that the code section was void for } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_80_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_80_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *80 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 vagueness. In the following language, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Kennedy noted when counsel\rquote s function begins: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 An attorney\rquote s duties do not begin inside the courtroom door. He or she ca nnot ignore the practical implications of a legal proceeding for the client. Jus t as an attorney may recommend a plea bargain or civil settlement to avoid the a dverse consequences of a possible loss after trial, so too an attorney may take

reasonable steps to defend a client\rquote s reputation and reduce the adverse c onsequences of indictment, especially in the face of a prosecution deemed unjust or commenced with improper motives. A defense attorney may pursue lawful strate gies to obtain dismissal of an indictment or reduction of charges, including an attempt to demonstrate in the court of public opinion that the client does not d eserve to be tried. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 2278-79 (Kennedy, J. dissenting). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The opinion has sparked a heated debate as to the propriety of placing of restri ctions on the ability of counsel to vigorously represent a client through the us e of the media. See Andrew Blum, Left Speechless, 15 Nat\rquote l L. J. 20 at 1 (January 18, 1993) (Outlining pending cases of attorneys accused of illegal medi a contacts during litigation). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 G. Admissibility of Evidence Acquired in Breach of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Evidence obtained from an invasion of another\rquote s } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is not admissible. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980152543&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Sindona, 636 F.2d 792 (2d Cir. 1980)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981220017&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 451 U.S. 912 (1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , information from a witness\rquote Venezuelan lawyer was offered in cross-exam ination of that witness. The information was held inadmissible. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 If information obtained as a result of a violation of that } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 were permitted to be used against the client on cross-examination, it would des troy the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 . A client \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 could hardly confide in counsel if this result were sanctioned.

\par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980152543&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_805" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 636 F.2d at 805. }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991028151&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Schwimmer, 924 F.2d 443 (2d Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991099571&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 112 S. Ct. 55 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (1991, FBI agents had viewed workpapers prepared by an accountant who had been } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_81_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_81_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *81 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 hired by the accused and his counsel to assist in the preparation of the defens e. At an evidentiary hearing, the Assistant United States Attorney who prosecute d the case testified that they had not used the workpapers in preparation; hence , the Sixth Amendment and the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 had not been invaded. The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that the decision below was not clearly erroneous. Perhaps there had been confirmator y use, but such influence as there might have been was held to be \u8220\'3fwhol ly conjectural and insubstantial.\u8221\'3f As to the argument that an intention al intrusion into the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 had occurred and that was sufficient to cause reversal, the Second Circuit disa greed; the government\rquote s conduct either had to be \u8220\'3fmanifestly and avowedly corrupt\u8221\'3f, or prejudice to the case must be shown. Id. at 447. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988066195&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Hammad, 846 F.2d 854, }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 rehearing denied and opinion clarified, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988109898&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 855 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the issue was whether information learned by the government from an informer c orrupted the conviction. The Court of Appeals ruled that government prosecutors were bound by the disciplinary rule which forbade attorneys from communicating w ith an opposing party other than through his counsel, DR 7-104 (A)(1), but ruled that \u8220\'3fwe urge restraint in applying the rule to } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 investigations to avoid handcuffing law enforcement officers in their efforts t o develop evidence.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988066195&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_858" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 846 F.2d at 858. }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court suggested that the proper resolution of the tension was to allow cont act to be made where suspects are unaware they are being investigated, but not w here the suspect had engaged counsel to represent him. The court of appeals, upo n petition for rehearing by the government, then \u8220\'3fclarified\u8221\'3f i ts ruling by outlining circumstances where a prosecutor may use informers and ot herwise communicate directly with the accused. It has been suggested that Hammad can also be used by corporate defense attorneys to frustrate governmental inves tigations. See Gillers, Ethical Questions for Prosecutors in Corporate-Crime Inv estigations, N.Y.L.J., Sept. 6, 1988, col. 1. (Discussing use of Hammad by defen se counsel in effort to prevent government investigators from gaining direct acc ess to suspects, and as constitutional extension of Sixth Amendment right to cou nsel). Cf. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992160888&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Baylson v. Pa. Sup. Ct. Disciplinary Bd., 975 F.2d 102 (3rd Cir. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Holding that the Federal District Court\rquote s adoption by local rule of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court\rquote s Rules of Professional Conduct, thereby bind ing the Federal courts and Federal } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_82_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_82_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *82 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 prosecutors to the State rule that prohibits issuance of a grand jury subpoena without prior judicial approval, conflicts with Fedl. Rule of Crim. P. 17. There fore, since under Supremacy Clause conflicting or incompatible State laws are tr umped by Federal law, the subpoena rule cannot be applied to federal prosecutors .). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Thornburgh memorandum of June 8, 1989, issued by former United States Attorn ey General Richard Thornburgh, allowed \u8220\'3fprosecutors and their agents br

oad contact with represented suspects prior to the filing of charges in } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 cases and before the start of a lawsuit in civil proceedings.\u8221\'3f Daniel Wise, \lquote Thornburgh Memo\rquote Rules Killed, N.Y.L.J. at 1 (February 1, 1 993). The memorandum was scheduled to be published in the Federal Register but, due to delay, the memorandum was not published. The administration of President Clinton has since put publication of the memorandum on hold. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 H. Availability in Congressional Investigations. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The availability of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in Congressional investigations, although generally respected, is not entirely clear. Compare Note, The } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0101667146&pubNum=3050&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in Congressional Investigations, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 145 (1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (arguing that the statutory intent of the congressional contempt statute, recor ded past legislative practice respecting claims of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and the substantive nature of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 as affecting \u8220\'3fprimary private activities\u8221\'3f should persuade a f ederal court to recognize the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege

} } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in congressional investigations), with } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , Memoranda Opinions of the American Law Div\rquote n, Library of Congress for t he use of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on E nergy and Commerce, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983). } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Congress, unlike in earlier days when each House adjudged witnesses\rquote con tempts, has to use the courts to enforce its subpoenas, and it would seem that t he courts are likely to recognize the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Cf. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCPR81&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(3)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , providing that the Rules are applicable where subpoenas issued by officers on agencies are not heeded. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Some courts say a work product defense may only be used to defeat an administrat ive summons, See in dictum } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979140180&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Bonnell, 483 F. Supp. 1070 (D. Minn. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1973108558&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, 473 F.2d 840 (8th Cir. 1973) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . But a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_83_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_83_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *83 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 work product defense to an agency subpoena is no good where the subpoena seeks fruits of work product and not actual work product. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979140180&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_1079" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Bonnell, 483 F. Supp. at 1079 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (an administrative agency\rquote s ability to gather information is greater at investigatory than hearing stage). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 I. Confidences Elicited by an Imposter. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 What happens if confidences are elicited by someone posing as a lawyer? A free-l ance writer, posing as the hired investigator of the lawyer of Cathy Evelyn Smit h, John Belushi\rquote s girlfriend, elicited a candid account from her, never t old to anyone else, tending to inculpate her for administering large injections of cocaine that allegedly caused Belushi\rquote s death. A jailing for contempt caused him to produce a tape of the conversation that was played at a preliminar y hearing to evaluate if there was probable cause to support an indictment of mu rder. The newspaper report (N.Y. Times, Oct. 12, 1985, at 54, col. 1) did not in dicate if Ms. Smith had moved to suppress the evidence on the ground of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , but it would seem that a motion would have sound basis, for } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 would normally extend to cover conversations between a client and a lawyer\rquo te s investigator. And, generally, it is the client\rquote s reasonable understa nding of the status of the person in whom she confides that should control the d ecision of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , for it is the client, not the lawyer (real or putative), who owns the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 J. Prohibition Against Evasion of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Relationship. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The attorney may not aid or encourage the client to bypass the professional obli gation to deal only with the other party\rquote s counsel; for example, the lawy er may not counsel the client to negotiate directly with the opposing client. N. Y. City 1991-2, interpreting DR7-104 (reprinted in The Record [1991] at 784); bu t see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988066195&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Hammad, 846 F.2d 854, }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 rehearing denied and opinion clarified, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1988109898&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 855 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (outlining circumstances where prosecutor may use informers and otherwise commu nicate directly with accused). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_84_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_84_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *84 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 II. The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 in the Corporate Setting -- Who Is the Client? \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. The Broad Rule of Upjohn. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. The Earlier \u8220\'3fControl Group Test.\u8221\'3f Until the decision by the United States Supreme Court of } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981101939&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the cases were divided as to who in a corporation could personify the corporat ion in seeking and carrying out legal advice. Most cases limited the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege }

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to a \u8220\'3fcontrol group,\u8221\'3f that is, to those in a corporation in p osition to control or take a substantial part in a decision about an action whic h the corporation may take upon the advice of counsel. See, e.g., } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1962112865&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Philadelphia v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 210 F. Supp. 483 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (E.D. Pa. 1962); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1968104759&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_693" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Natta v. Hogan, 392 F.2d 686, 693 (10th Cir. 1968) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Those not in the \u8220\'3fcontrol group\u8221\'3f who had relevant informatio n confided to counsel without protection of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , unless the case arose in a circuit that extended the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to those in the corporation, of whatever rank, who communicated as to relevant matters within the scope of their duties and at the direction of the \u8220\'3fc ontrol group.\u8221\'3f See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977125046&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Diversified Indus., Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (en banc); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1978121778&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Ampicillin Antitrust Litig., 81 F.R.D. 377 (D.D.C. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; 2 Weinstein, Evidence \u167\'3f 503(b) (1975). The cases are collected in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980195030&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_619" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. AT&T, 86 F.R.D. 603, 619-21 (D.D.C. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Still other circuits observed the \u8220\'3fcontrol group\u8221\'3f restrictio ns or found it unnecessary to rule on the issue, and upheld confidentiality unde r the \u8220\'3fwork product\u8221\'3f } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979113188&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated December 19, 1978, 599 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979113305&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Investigation, 599 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Its Rejection by the Supreme Court. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981101939&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_383" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. at 383,

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 resolved the issue by rejecting the \u8220\'3fcontrol group\u8221\'3f standard as too narrow. The court ruled, unanimously: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The narrow scope given the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 by the court below not only makes it difficult for corporate attorneys to formu late sound advice when their client is faced with a specific legal problem but a lso threatens to limit the valuable efforts of corporate counsel to ensure their client\rquote s compliance with the law. In light of the vast and complicated a rray of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_85_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_85_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *85 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 regulatory legislation confronting the modern corporation, corporations, unlike most individuals, \u8220\'3fconstantly go to lawyers to find out how to obey th e law.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1981101939&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 392 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Underlying Facts and Supreme Court Relief. Upjohn arose from an investigation of \u8220\'3fquestionable payments.\u8221\'3f The investigation was conceived a nd carried out by \u8220\'3finside\u8221\'3f and \u8220\'3foutside\u8221\'3f cou nsel, following authority given by the company\rquote s Chairman of the Board. Q uestionnaires sent by the chairman and returned to \u8220\'3finside\u8221\'3f co unsel, followed by interviews by \u8220\'3foutside\u8221\'3f counsel, elicited t he information. Counsel\rquote s notes and memoranda captured and analyzed the i nformation. The investigation was followed by a disclosure to the SEC and IRS, a nd an identification to the IRS of the persons who had been interviewed and who had responded to the questionnaires. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The IRS then began its own investigation, which quickly sought the questionnaire s, the responses and the notes and memoranda. The district court and the Sixth C ircuit Court of Appeals upheld the subpoenas, using the \u8220\'3fcontrol group\ u8221\'3f standard as the principal reason and expressing concern that a broader standard would create \u8220\'3ftoo broad a \lquote zone of silence.\u8221\'3f\ rquote } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981101939&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 388 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Supreme Court reversed. It stressed the need of counsel to be \u8220\'3ffull y informed\u8221\'3f in accordance with his own considerations of what was impor tant, and it observed that \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Middle-level -- and indeed lower level employees can, by actions within the scop e of their employment, embroil the corporation in serious legal difficulties, an d it is only natural that these employees would have the relevant information ne eded by corporate counsel if he is adequately to advise the client with respect to such actual or potential difficulties.

\par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981101939&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 391 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Supreme Court ruled that the control group test \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_86_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_86_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *86 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 frustrates the very purpose of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 by discouraging the communication of relevant information by employees of the c lient to attorneys seeking to render legal advice to the client corporation. . . . [T]he control group test makes it more difficult to convey full and frank leg al advice to the employees who will put into effect the client corporation\rquot e s policy. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981101939&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 392 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 And the Supreme Court was unconcerned about the \u8220\'3fzone of silence\u8221\ '3f that supposedly would follow from a test broader than \u8220\'3fcontrol grou p.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Application of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to communications such as those involved here, . . . puts the adversary in no w orse position than if the communications had never taken place. The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 only protects disclosure of communications; it does not protect disclosure of t he underlying facts by those who communicated with the attorney. . . . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981101939&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti

onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 395 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. But No \u8220\'3fBlackletter\u8221\'3f Test. The Supreme Court (except for Ch ief } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Burger) refused to establish a new standard. It criticized the \u8220\'3fcontro l group\u8221\'3f test as unpredictable, and noted the need to be able \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to predict with some degree of certainty whether particular discussions will be protected. An uncertain } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , or one which purports to be certain but results in widely varying applications by the courts, is little better than no } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 at all. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981101939&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

Id. at 393 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Chief } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Burger, observing that the Court\rquote s refusal to express a standard was inc onsistent with this need, recommended the following two-part rule: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 a) \u8220\'3fan employee or former employee speaks at the direction of the manag ement with an attorney } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_87_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_87_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *87 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 regarding conduct or proposed conduct within the scope of employment.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981101939&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 403 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 b) The attorney was \u8220\'3fauthorized by the management to inquire into the s ubject and must be seeking information to assist counsel in performing any of th e following functions: (a) evaluating whether the employee\rquote s conduct has bound or would bind the corporation; (b) assessing the legal consequences, if an y, of that conduct; or (c) formulating appropriate legal responses to actions th at have been or may be taken by others with regard to that conduct.\u8221\'3f Id . \par

} } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Former Employees and Non-Employee Insiders. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Former Employees. A number of the persons interviewed were no longer employee s of Upjohn. The Supreme Court declined to rule whether or not Upjohn could cont inue to claim the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 concerning communications made by and with them during their employment, for th e courts below had not considered the point. Id. at 685, n.3. It would seem, how ever, that the communications should be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , for the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 belongs to Upjohn, not the employees. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977125705&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Jackier), 434 F. Supp. 648 (E.D. Mich. 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978102597&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 570 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1978)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988020794&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Chancellor v. Boeing Co., 678 F. Supp. 250 (D. Kan. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (opposing counsel cannot conduct ex parte interviews with former employees of t he corporation without the corporation counsel\rquote s consent if the former em ployee\rquote s acts or admissions may be imputed to the corporation). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The issue in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982112579&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. King, 536 F. Supp. 253 (C.D. Cal. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , was whether the conversations between an attorney and a former employee of the client who had received immunity from prosecution and was cooperating with the government were } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court ruled that Upjohn, overruled, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988040861&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 842 F.2d 1136, }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 cert. denied sub. nom. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989104624&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Barrett v. United States, 492 U.S. 926 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 extends the }

{\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to former employees, but the attorney\rquote s knowledge that the witness was c ooperating with the government and was separately represented put the attorney o n notice } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_88_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_88_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *88 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3fthat her remarks were not being made to a trusted advisor of her clie nts, that is, in a confidential setting.\u8221\'3f Id. at 260. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Because the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 can extend to lower-ranking personnel of an organization, without conflict or a ppearance of impropriety, counsel may represent the company, present employees o f the company and former employees of the company. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981140448&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Coordinated PreTrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig., 658 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied sub nom. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982210850&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 California v. Standard Oil Co., 455 U.S. 990 (1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 extends even through the employee\rquote s communication to counsel was of info rmation learned prior to his employment. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981107780&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_414" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. Lemay, 89 F.R.D. 410, 414 (S.D. Ohio 1981) }}}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (corporate employee\rquote s communications to counsel are protected under Upjo hn \u8220\'3feven if the information . . . was originally obtained before the co mmunicator became the corporate client\rquote s employee, as long as the communi cation is made by the client\rquote s employee qua employee, at the client\rquot e s behest, in order to secure legal advice, and such communication is intended by the client and participants to be confidential\u8221\'3f). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Some recent cases, however, have extended the Corporate} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to former employees. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981140448&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prod. Antitrust Litig., 658 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied sub nom. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982210850&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 California v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 455 U.S. 990 (1982) }}}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (former employees may possess the relevant information needed by corporate coun sel to advise the client). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Lawyers\rquote Ex Parte Contacts with Employees of a Party. Are there ethica l problems in ex parte contacts with employees and former employees of a corpora te adversary? The ethical rules at issue, are those prohibiting communication wi th parties known to be represented by counsel. Rule 4.2 of the American Bar Asso ciation (\u8220\'3fABA\u8221\'3f) Model Rules of Professional Conduct (\u8220\'3 fThe Model Rules\u8221\'3f) is typical of the various state statutes: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of th e representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawy er in the matter, unless the lawyer } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_89_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_89_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *89 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 This rule serves two purposes: to prevent a represented party from being taken a dvantage of by adverse counsel; and to prevent the disruption of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The ABA commentary to Rule 4.2 identifies three categories of persons consider ed to be parties in the case of an organization: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (1) Persons having managerial responsibility on behalf of the organization, \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (2) And with any other person, \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 a. whose act or omission in connection with that matter may be imputed to the or ganization, or \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 b. whose statement may constitute an admission on the part of the organization. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.2 comment (1983). See also Code Prof. Resp. DR 7-104 (\u8220\'3fforbidding communications with a represented party, b ut not defining \u8220\'3fparty\u8221\'3f). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 When the party is a corporation, how far does the prohibition extend: to all emp loyees? to \u8220\'3fcontrol group\u8221\'3f employees? to former employees? May adverse counsel, without advising counsel for the corporation, call upon employ ees who were witness to the event and seek to interview them, even those whose c onversations with counsel for the corporation would be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 under Upjohn? \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 a) Present Employees \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990102133&pubNum=578&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Niesig v. Team I, 76 N.Y.2d 363, 558 N.E.2d 1030 (1990) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the New York Court of Appeals held that the prohibition did not necessarily ex tend to all corporate employees who might, under Upjohn, be considered a \u8220\ '3fclient;\u8221\'3f the prohibition extended only to \u8220\'3femployees whose acts or omissions . . . are binding on the corporation . . . or imputed to the c orporation for purposes of its liability, or employees implementing the advice o f counsel. All other employees may be interviewed informally.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990102133&pubNum=605&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_605_374" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 76 N.Y.2d at 374. }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Niesig, plaintiff\rquote s counsel sought to interview employees who witness ed the accident in suit. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Judge Judith Kaye held that the Code of Professional Responsibility was a guidel ine, not a rule of decision, that \u8220\'3favenues of informal } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_90_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_90_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *90 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 discovery of information that may serve both the litigants and the entire } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 system\u8221\'3f should not be discouraged, and that \u8220\'3finterviews atten ded by adversary counsel\u8221\'3f are not adequate substitutes for \u8220\'3fof f-the-record private efforts to learn and assemble, rather than perpetuate, info rmation.\u8221\'3f ( } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990102133&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 372 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ). Thus, the rule: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 would prohibit direct communication by adversary counsel \lquote with those offi cials, but only those, who have the legal power to bind the corporation in the m atter or who are responsible for implementing the advice of the corporation\rquo te s lawyer, or any member of the organization whose own interests are directly at stake in a representation.\rquote This test would permit direct access to al l other employees . . . . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990102133&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 374-75 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (citation omitted). The Court of Appeals ruled that interviewing attorneys were required to make their \u8220\'3fidentity and interest known to interviewees\u8 221\'3f. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990102133&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 376 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Judge Bellacosa, concurring, expressed the view that a rule extending beyond \ u8220\'3fcontrol group\u8221\'3f employees was vague, encouraged motion practice , and would \u8220\'3f[sacrifice] an unnecessarily disproportionate amount of th e } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 truth } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

-discovering desideratum of the litigation process.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990102133&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 376 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990143200&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_570" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Bouge v. Smith\rquote s Management Corp., 132 F.R.D. 560, 570 (D. Utah 1990) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (finding that the New York Court of Appeals has \u8220\'3fstruck the proper bal ance of fairness, support for legitimate ethical considerations, . . . and clari ty of application . . . .\u8221\'3f). But see Balancing The Duty To Investigate Litigation Claims Against The Ban On Communicating With An Adverse Corporate \u8 220\'3fParty\u8221\'3f After Niesig, 48 The Rec. of the Ass\rquote n of the Bar of the City of N.Y. 406, 407-8 (May 1992) (Concluding that the \u8220\'3fNiesig test neither provides sufficient certainty of application nor properly strikes t he balance between the interests of the corporate client and those of the invest igating attorney\u8221\'3f). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 California law seems to be the same as New York, West\rquote s Ann. Cal. 23, Pt. 2, Rule 2-100 (1989), extending the prohibition to the \u8220\'3fcontrol group\ u8221\'3f, i.e., \u8220\'3f[a]n officer, director, or managing agent of a corpor ation or association, and a partner or managing agent of a partnership\u8221\'3f , and to employees \u8220\'3fif the subject of the communication is any act or o mission of, binding upon, or imputed to the organization . . . or whose statemen t may } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_91_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_91_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *91 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 constitute an admission on the part of the organization.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989121886&pubNum=227&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Triple A Mach. Shop, Inc. v. State, 213 Cal. App. 3d 131, 140, 261 Cal. Rptr. 49 3 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 confirmed that employees of a party may be interviewed, without notifying the a ttorney for the corporation, so long as the

\par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communication does not involve the employee\rquote s act or failure to act in co nnection with the matter which may bind the corporation, be imputed to it, or co nstitute an admission of the corporation for purposes of establishing the liabil ity. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984158408&pubNum=661&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_661_569" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Wright v. Group Health Hosp., 103 Wash. 2d 192, 691 P.2d 564, 569 (1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (adverse attorney may conduct ex parte interviews with current corporate employ ees who do not have managing authority sufficient to speak for and bind the Corp oration); see also Comment, Ex Parte Communications with Corporate Parties: The Scope of the Limitations on Attorney Communications With One of Adverse Interest , 82 Northwestern L. Rev. 1274 (1988). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The California Supreme Court ruled in Triple A Mach. Shop, Inc., supra, that if an ex parte communication is barred, it does not matter if the information sough t is } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 or not. Query if, in California and, for that matter, in New York, an interview may extend to } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information if the circumstances are otherwise appropriate. \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 b) Former Employees \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility considered the quest ion of former employees under Model Rule 4.2. After recognizing that neither the rule nor the comment deal with former employees, the Committee concluded \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 that a lawyer representing a client in a matter adverse to a corporate party tha t is represented by another lawyer may, without violating Model Rule 4.2, commun icate about the subject of the representation with an unrepresented former emplo yee of the corporate party without the consent of the corporation\rquote s lawye r. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ABA Comm. on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 91-359 (Marc h 22, 1991). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_92_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_92_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *92 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 How can a company guard itself against disclosure by a former employee of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information? In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992097998&pubNum=3484&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Nalian Truck Lines, Inc. v. Nakano Warehouse & Transp. Corp., 6 Cal. App. 4th 12 56, 8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 467 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1992)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the plaintiff\rquote s former manager and board member sought out defendant\rq uote s counsel and submitted to an interview. The former manager told defense co unsel that two large customers had left plaintiff just before a fire that damage d plaintiff\rquote s plant, thus impeaching plaintiff\rquote s damage calculatio ns. Previously, the former manager had worked closely with plaintiff\rquote s co unsel in establishing the damage theories. It was thus difficult to separate inf ormation that the manager had from his business operations and information that he had learned from his preparatory work with counsel. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The California Court of Appeals, reversing the trial court, accepted defense cou nsel\rquote s representation that he did not ask questions intended to elicit } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information, and refused to disqualify defense counsel. Interviews of former em ployees are permitted. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988038016&pubNum=227&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Bobele v. Super. Court, 199 Cal. App. 3d 708, 245 Cal. Rptr. 144 (1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . And the plaintiff could not complain about unauthorized waivers by former empl oyees of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information; \u8220\'3fit is incumbent upon a party who knows that its former e mployees, including former control group employees, possess }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information to seek a protective order.\u8221\'3f Nalian Truck at 472. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 R. Bruce Beckner, Associate Editor of Advance Sheet, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0103025361&pubNum=100189&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cb lt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 19 Litigation 53 (Fall 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 discusses possibilities for a protective order. A blanket order, forbidding con versation, is not possible, for a corporation \u8220\'3fcannot bring former empl oyees back into the fold for purposes of a lawsuit\u8221\'3f. And how can one st op a disgruntled employee who insists on volunteering } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information. After all, the underlying information known to the employee is not } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 , only the } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 . \par } \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communication of that information is \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Perhaps the only protection is the requirement of a warning. A motion for a prot ective order might seek to require opposing counsel to advise, a set time before or, if that is not possible, promptly after, an interview with a named former e mployee, the fact of such interview and, again if possible, the subjects covered (with whatever degree of specificity the court might allow). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_93_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_93_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *93 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 For a summary of opinions on communication with former employees, see Brian J. Redding, The Perils of Litigation Practice, 18 Litigation No. 4, at 10 (Summer 1 992). See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989111181&pubNum=227&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Bell v. Twentieth Cent. Ins. Co., 212 Cal. App. 3d 194, 260 Cal. Rptr. 459 (1989 ) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (former member of the \u8220\'3fcontrol group\u8221\'3f who was no longer a cor porate employee may be interviewed, for he is no longer an employee of a party.) ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991090251&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Dubois v. Gradco Systems, Inc., 136 F.R.D. 341 (D. Conn. 1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (communications with former employee of adverse corporate party without corpora tion\rquote s lawyer\rquote s consent not prohibited by Connecticut Rules of Pro fessional Conduct); Bobele v. Superior Court, supra, (ex parte interviews allowe d only for former employees). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Other cases have prohibited ex parte interviews with former high placed employee s of a corporate adversary. See, e.g., American Projection Ins. Co. v. MGM Grand Hotel-Las Vegas, Inc., CV-LV-82-26 HDM (D. Nev. Mar. 13, 1986) (ex parte contac t with former vice president who had access to the legal thinking of the corpora tion held improper). \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 c) Problem of Imputing Information to the Corporation. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 An important problem with a rule, such as that in New York and California, which prevents ex parte contact with agents who are not part of the control group but who may bind the corporation, or give information imputed to it, is that the pr ohibition tends to swallow the rule, as Judge Bellacosa\rquote s concurring opin ion in Niesig pointed out. Under agency law and the Federal Rules of Evidence ( } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRER801&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D)) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , a statement is not hearsay if \u8220\'3fthe statement is offered against a par ty and is a statement by his agent or servant concerning a matter within the sco pe of his agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship.\u 8221\'3f Since even a low level employee may make statements admissible in evide nce against his employer, may an interviewing attorney safely conduct interviews without risking motions to suppress, censure or possible disqualification? Judg e Kaye, in Niesig, considered that the Court of Appeals\rquote holding would cl arify rights, but a great deal of uncertainty remains. See, for a practical anal ysis and suggestions, C.E. Stewart, Whither the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , N.Y.L.J., Oct. 11, 1990, p. 1, col. 1. The Committee on Professional Ethics of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Op. 80-46, 2 opinions, Comm ittee on Professional Ethics: The Association of the Bar of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_94_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_94_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *94 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 the City of New York) expressed the view, in terms of professional responsibili ties, that a corporation\rquote s right to effective representation can be guard ed adequately only by viewing all present employees of the corporation as partie s where the proposed interview concerns matters within the scope of the employee s\rquote employment. See also Committee on Professional Ethics of Massachusetts Bar Association, Formal Op. 82-7 (1982) (ex parte interviews with current corpo rate employees concerning matters within the scope of their employment are prohi bited, but the prohibition of the rule applies only to present, not former, empl oyees of the corporation). Although Niesig held that the New York courts are not to be limited by the Code of Professional Responsibility in deciding discovery issues, lawyers, presumably, are (or should be) so limited. Where does that leav e a lawyer preparing to interview witnesses who are employees of the corporation that is being sued? Furthermore, if a corporate employee is the equivalent of a party, he will remain one even after leaving the corporation, because he has a memory. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986149038&pubNum=227&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Mills Land & Water Co. v. Golden West Ref. Co., 186 Cal. App. 3d 116, 230 Cal. R ptr. 461 (1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (because a former official was a high ranking member of the corporation without the protection of Rule 4.2, the ability of the Corporation Counsel to freely co mmunicate would be largely destroyed); American Projections Ins. Co. v. MGM Gran d Hotel-Las Vegas, Inc., supra, (former employee had access to legal thinking of Corporation). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The dilemma is acute: how to further the importance of informal fact gathering b y permitting ex parte interviews of those having knowledge, without creating und ue risks of imposition and over-reaching with regard to existing low-level emplo yees and invasion of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 -

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 confidences with regard to former high-level employees. We have surely not had the last word in this area. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Non-Employee Insiders. Upjohn may support an argument that communications bet ween the corporate attorney and an accountant having such knowledge of the corpo ration\rquote s financial affairs as to make him the equivalent of an \u8220\'3f insider\u8221\'3f should be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . John E. Sexton, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0101932798&pubNum=1206&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_1206_498" }{\fl drslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A Post-Upjohn Consideration of the Corporate } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , 57 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 443, 498 (1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Professor Sexton cites cases extending } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to an attorney\rquote s communications with a corporation\rquote s agents. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975106976&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_1164" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., 397 F. Supp. 1146, 1164 (D.S.C. 1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . But cf. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_95_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_95_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *95 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982117558&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re John Doe Corp. (John Doe Corp. v. United States), 675 F.2d 482 (2d Cir. 19 82) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (corporation disclosed report of counsel, and legal advice, evaluating question able payments. The disclosure by the corporation of the report to its public aud itors and to counsel for an underwriter, both in connection with a proposed offe ring of corporate stock and the obligations of the auditor and the underwriter w ith regard thereto, was held to waive the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ). See infra separate discussion on Waivers. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. State Retention of \u8220\'3fControl Group Test.\u8221\'3f Under state law, t he \u8220\'3fcontrol group\u8221\'3f test amy still be the determinative test. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982105132&pubNum=578&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Consolidation Coal Co. v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 89 Ill. 2d 103, 432 N.E.2d 250 (1982 ) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (adhering to \u8220\'3fcontrol group\u8221\'3f test but enlarging it to include those whose opinion form the basis of final decision with those with final auth ority); cf., decisions prior to Upjohn, e.g., } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1970112416&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Honeywell, Inc. v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 50 F.R.D. 117 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (M.D. Pa. 1970) (adopting the control group test in Pennsylvania); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1968104759&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Natta v. Hogan, 392 F.2d 686 (10th Cir. 1968) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (utilizing the control group test in Oklahoma); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1963110999&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Garrison v. General Motors Corp., 213 F. Supp. 515 (S.D. Ca. 1963) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (applying the control group test in California). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Upjohn and Work product. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

The Supreme Court considered counsel\rquote s notes and memoranda to the extent they went beyond recording communications with the client and its employees, tha t is, to the extent the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 did not protect the communications. As to these, the Supreme Court held, the \u 8220\'3fwork product\u8221\'3f } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 applied, and the strong protections expressed in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1947115463&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_511" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975129818&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_236" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 236-40 (1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 continued to apply. The issue had to do with relative need -- burden to the gov ernment in pursuing \u8220\'3finterviewees . . . scattered across the globe\u822 1\'3f Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. at 687, and the policy of protecting an \u8220 \'3fattorney\rquote s mental processes\u8221\'3f generally discernible from note s and memoranda of witnesses and statements, taking into consideration the small probative value of such notes and memoranda with regard to the witnesses\rquote actual words. Leaving for another day the question whether such notes and memo randa were \u8220\'3fabsolutely,\u8221\'3f or only conditionally, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the Supreme Court remanded the issue with the observation: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 While we are not prepared at this juncture to say that such material is } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_96_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_96_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *96 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 always protected by the work product rule, we think a far stronger showing of n ecessity and unavailability by other means than was made by the Government or ap plied by the magistrate in this case would be necessary to compel disclosure. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 688-89. See Note, The } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0101732443&pubNum=3050&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_3050_418" }{\fl drslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Work Product Doctrine in Subsequent Litigation, 83 Colum. L. Rev. 412, 418 (1983 ) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

The Court did not consider if \u8220\'3fextreme necessity\u8221\'3f, that is, no n-duplicability of important evidence, would justify an invasion of even the \u8 220\'3fmental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories\u8221\'3f of an attorney. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980195030&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_632" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. AT&T, 86 F.R.D. 603, 632-33 (D.D.C. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (report of Special Masters suggesting \u8220\'3fyes\u8221\'3f); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCPR26&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (providing for protection of such disclosure). Some courts have further refined opinion work product to make discovery easier the more the opinion involves obs ervation of facts. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975106976&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., 397 F. Supp. 1146 (D.S.C. 1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974104557&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Xerox v. IBM, 64 F.R.D. 367 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States District Ct. ( } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989118259&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 King Ranch Properties Limited Partnership), 881 F.2d 1486 (9th Cir. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , defendant\rquote s counsel interviewed two officers who were the most knowledg eable about an alleged securities fraud in the syndications of Arizona propertie

s. The interviews were conducted pursuant to understandings of corporate } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Promptly after the interviews, the two officers resigned and, when noticed for deposition, refused to attend; their counsel stated they would assert their Fif th Amendment } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Plaintiff\rquote s counsel then sought production of the statements given by t he two to counsel, arguing that the information was unavailable from any other s ource. The Court of Appeals, on writ of mandamus, held that the information was covered by the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , and not just work product, for it was gathered by counsel in order to give leg al advice concerning potential liability. Hence, there is no unavailability exce ption. \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . . .we decline to establish an unavailability exception to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The premium paid to preserve the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , as with all evidentiary } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , can be high, rendering } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_97_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_97_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *97 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ascertainment of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 truth } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 more problematic. Nonetheless, an unavailability exception to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is an unacceptable solution. Such an exception either would destroy the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 or render it so tenuous and uncertain that it would be \lquote little better th an no } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 at all.\rquote } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989118259&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 1495 (citing Upjohn) }}} \par } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982154446&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_50" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Hartz Mountain Indus., 553 F. Supp. 45, 50-51 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (same; interviews conducted by in-house counsel). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In New York, the statutory definition of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 extends, not only to communications by clients to their attorneys seeking advic e but, as well, to attorneys\rquote communications to clients treating legal ma tters even going beyond advice. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1000059&cite=NYCPS4503&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 N.Y. CPLR 4503 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is thus intended to foster \u8220\'3funinhibited dialogue between lawyers and c lients in their professional engagements\u8221\'3f. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989084026&pubNum=578&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rossi v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 73 N.Y.2d 588, 592, 540 N.E.2d 703 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In Rossi, a member of the corporate legal staff, in anticipation of a lawsuit, commented to a corporate officer with regard to rejections of requests for reim bursements of medical expenses. The doctor, reacting to the rejections, threaten ed to sue for defamation. The memorandum of the lawyer commented on conversation s with the plaintiff, with a government agency, as to applicable policies and al ternative ways of expressing rejections, and giving general legal evaluations. T he Court of Appeals held that since the memorandum was \u8220\'3fpredominantly o f a legal character,\u8221\'3f } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 extended to the entire document, even though the documents also referred to non legal matters. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Plaintiff asked that an alleged massive fraud should be considered to reject } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , but the Court of Appeals refused to do so. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 It thus appears that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in New York can be easily extended to over-reach the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . But the New York Court of Appeals is not alone in doing that, for the United S tates Supreme Court seemed to do something of the same sort in Upjohn. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. Officers\rquote and Employees\rquote Rights to } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par

} } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. General Rule. If corporate counsel elicit confidences from a corporate office r or } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_98_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_98_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *98 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 employee, may the officer or employee, as well as the corporation, claim the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ? See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977125705&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Jackier), 434 F. Supp. 648 (E.D. Mich. 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978102597&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 570 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (no, in instance where corporation waived the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in context of \u8220\'3fnolo\u8221\'3f plea); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978119736&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Demauro, 581 F.2d 50 (2d Cir. 1978) }}}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (no, where defendant communicated to a special counsel appointed by employing c orporation to investigate and was unable to prove that he believed that special counsel was representing him). But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977125046&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_611" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Diversified Ind., Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596, 611 n.5 (8th Cir. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (en banc) (possibly, where circumstances reveal that employee sought legal advi ce in circumstances of a joint representation). See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987133232&pubNum=164&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Standard Fin. Management Corp., 79 Bankr. 100 (D. Mass. 1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (in order to claim an individual as opposed to a corporate } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , when corporate officers approach corporate counsel for personal legal advice, it must be made explicitly clear to counsel that advice is sought individually r ather than in a corporate capacity). The problem of conflicting loyalties and im position suggested by these cases may be compounded by policies encouraging corp orations to volunteer confessions of wrongdoing to governmental agencies. See Bu rke, The }

{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0101377948&pubNum=1105&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_1105_270" }{\fl drslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Duty of Confidentiality and Disclosing Corporate Misconduct, 36 Bus. Law 239, 27 0 (1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See To Confess Or Not To Confess: Agonies of Uncovering Price-Fixing, 861 Anti trust & Trade Reg. Rep. (BNA) at AA-1 (April 27, 1978), describing compliance wi th that policy to obtain lenient treatment, at the apparent sacrifice of an offi cer of a subsidiary who confided in general counsel. Consider, also, if the \u82 20\'3fsafe harbor\u8221\'3f program intended by the Antitrust Division and the S EC to encourage disclosures by lower-level employees may not work to compromise the loyalty and efficacy of general counsel who presumably is to be, or preside over, the \u8220\'3fsafe harbor.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983157618&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Re Grand Jury Investigation No. 83-30557, 575 F. Supp. 777 (N.D. Ga. 1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , employees of a company that had waived the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , seeking nevertheless to prevent counsel from testifying as to the conversation s they had with him, were allowed to intervene but the test set out by the court made success all but impossible. The employees would have to prove: (1) that th ey had made it clear to the lawyer that they were seeking his advice in their in dividual, rather than in their representative capacities; (2) that the lawyer ha d communicated with them in that individual capacity, knowing that a possible co nflict of interest could } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_99_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_99_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *99 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 arise and (3) that the substance of the conversations did not concern the emplo yees\rquote official duties or the company\rquote s general affairs. \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Possession of allegedly } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents by the corporation is generally enough to defeat an individual office r\rquote s claim of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986140583&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A Corporate Grand Jury Witness and \u8220\'3fJohn Doe\u8221\'3f v. United States , 798 F.2d 32 (2d Cir. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court of appeals denied the motion, holding \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The fact that the documents are in the possession of the corporation is itself e nough to rebut a naked claim of personal } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 without a substantial factual submission in support of the motion. Absent such a submission, possession by the corporation presumptively indicates either that the communications to counsel were in the course of the corporation\rquote s bus iness rather than John Doe\rquote s personal affairs or that John Doe waived the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege

} } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 by disclosure of the communications to third parties, namely other employees of the corporation. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986140583&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 34 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . A lawyer should, when in doubt, presume, unless it is clear to the contrary, t hat an } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 relationship existed and that the communications which an adversary seeks to di scover were incident to that relationship and confidential. D.C. Bar Legal Ethic s Comm., Op. 99 (1981). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Work product Application. Although the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is said to belong to the attorney, the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is of \u8220\'3fdeep concern to the client\u8221\'3f and, to the extent the \u8 220\'3fclient\rquote s interest may be affected, he, too, may assert the work pr oduct } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 .\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979114327&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_801" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Appeal of FMC Corp.), 604 F.2d 798, 801 (3d Cir. 1 979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981132298&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Moody v. IRS, 654 F.2d 795 (D.D.C. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (client\rquote s interest deserves protection even if lawyer\rquote s unprofess ional conduct vitiates work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ). But, whether owned by lawyer or client, the right to appeal from an order to disclose is not clear. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980101991&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Oberkoetter, 612 F.2d 15 (1st Cir. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

, cert. denied sub nom. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984224455&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Doe v. United States, 467 U.S. 1246 (1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (mandamus is proper mode). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Implications of Special Counsel. The role of special counsel appointed at the instance of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_100_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_100_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *100 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 the SEC and pursuant to a consent decree where, often, the corporation waives } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in favor of the SEC, creates special problems. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978122108&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 SEC v. Canadian Javelin, Ltd., 451 F. Supp. 594 (D.D.C. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (no } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 since allegiance of special counsel is to court and public and not to corporati on; and, communication by an executive to corporation\rquote s lawyer with notic e that information would not be withheld from special counsel also has to be dis closed); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1979115307&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Ind., Inc., 82 F.R.D. 81 (N.D. Ga. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (same -- special counsel was hired, not to give advice, and not as a voluntary decision of the Board (thus distinguishing } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977125046&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_596" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Diversified Ind., Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d at 596), }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 but to investigate and report, and his report cannot be considered as having be en rendered in anticipation of litigation). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981113746&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re LTV Sec. Litig., 89 F.R.D. 595 (N.D. Tex. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (refusing to permit stockholder deposition of \u8220\'3fspecial officer\u8221\' 3f appointed pursuant to SEC consent decree on grounds that disclosure is protec ted by a \u8220\'3fhybrid } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8221\'3f partaking of that accorded an SEC investigator and conventional couns el, and drawn by the special officer\rquote s role in the remedial scheme of the consent decree and the legitimate needs of the parties. \u8220\'3fPermitting di scovery in parallel civil litigation will inhibit corporate self-investigation a nd law enforcement.\u8221\'3f) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. Dean Sexton\rquote s Critique. Dean John E. Sexton of N.Y.U. Law School has p ublished perhaps the best analysis of Upjohn\rquote s implications. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0101932798&pubNum=1206&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt

1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A Post-Upjohn Consideration of the Corporate } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , 57 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 443 (1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Dean Sexton suggests: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 a) To carry out Upjohn\rquote s assumption that promoting disclosures to attorne ys will induce more effective compliance with law, the employee who discloses, a s well as the corporation, should be protected. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The corporation should not have the right to waive if the employee (or former em ployee) objects, as occurred in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977125705&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_650" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Aug. 1977 (Jackier), 434 F. Supp. 648, 650 (E.D. M ich. 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d per curiam, }

{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978102597&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 570 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; see also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979113305&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1236" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Investigation (Sun Co.), 599 F.2d 1224, 1236 (3d Cir. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 b) Broadly read, Upjohn extends too far. If the communications of all corporate employees are covered, the rule of } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1947115463&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_101_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_101_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *101 }

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 does not protect information gathered by an attorney from employees who are not his client, will be eroded. If too many within the corporation can receive comm unications from the attorney, the rules of waiver may be compromised. Dean Sexto n suggests five rules as standards: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li540 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3f1) The communication must be one that would not have been made but for the contemplation of legal services. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li540 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2) The content of the communication must relate to the legal services being rend ered. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li540 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3) The information-giver must be an employee, agent, or independent contractor w ith a significant relationship to the corporation and the corporation\rquote s i nvolvement in the transaction that is the subject of legal services. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li540 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4) The communication must be made in confidence. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li540 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 5) The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 may be asserted either by the corporation or by the information-giver.\u8221\'3

f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Sexton, supra. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The implications of Upjohn according to Dean Sexton, are not consistent with the rationale underlying other rules and need to be harmonized. In shareholder and class suits, the ability of shareholders in derivative and class suits to show \ u8220\'3fgood cause\u8221\'3f and thereby gain the right to discover communicati ons between officers and directors and corporate counsel is leniently found. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1970102198&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1971242029&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 401 U.S. 974 (1971) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , discussed infra in Part IV. Under disclosure statutes, the corporation may hav e to disclose what its attorney learned in confidence, and doctrines of waiver m ay extend such disclosures. Because of situations like these, an employee may pr efer to guard his secrets rather than disclose to the corporation\rquote s attor ney, thereby subverting the policy informing Upjohn. And there may be other situ ations where conflicts arise between the interests of the corporation and those } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_102_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_102_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *102 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 of the employee. (Such potential conflicts may require separate counsel for emp loyees.) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Dean Sexton concludes by suggesting that Upjohn may be considerably less sweepin g than was formerly believed. Rather than a standard for all } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communications within a corporate setting, the case may yet be limited to its s pecial facts, the goal of motivating disclosures by employees to aid a corporati on\rquote s specific compliance program. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 III. Exceptions to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 - \u8220\'3fFor the Purpose of Committing a Crime or Fraud\u8221\'3f. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. General Policy of the Exception. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 As stated in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989092405&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 109 S.Ct. 2619 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3fThe } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 must necessarily protect the confidences of wrongdoers, but the reason for that protection -- the centrality of open client and attorney communication to the p roper functioning of our adversary system of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 -- \u8220\'3fceases to operate at a certain point, namely, where the desired ad vice refers not to prior wrongdoing, but to future wrongdoing.\u8221\'3f (citing 8 Wigmore, \u167\'3f 2298, p. 573). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989092405&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_708_2626" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 562-3, 109 S.Ct. at 2626. }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See

} {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1933122711&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_15" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 15 (1933) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (dictum); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981105366&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Loften, 507 F. Supp. 108 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (communications between alleged head of narcotics syndicate and attorney regard ing, inter alia, representation of other members of the ring were in furtherance of a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 enterprise and therefore not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Lawyer\rquote s Innocence Not Relevant. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The lawyer may be unaware of the client\rquote s purpose. Thus, in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975112596&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_909" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Calvert, 523 F.2d 895, 909 (8th Cir. 1975)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976214682&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 424 U.S. 911 (1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the defendant told his partner, who also was his lawyer, why he was entitled t o the proceeds of an insurance policy. His disclosure, otherwise } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , was fraudulent, intended to defraud the insurance company, and the court order ed that the disclosure had to be revealed. The outcome would } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_103_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_103_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *103 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 have been different if the attorney had been retained to defend the partner for a fraud already committed. See also In Re Grand Jury S.D.J. dated Sept. 15, 198 3, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984118043&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1039" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Marc Rich & Co. A.G. v. United States, 731 F.2d 1032, 1039 n.3 (2d Cir. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and cases cited. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Burden on Movant; Whether Evidence Independent of Allegedly } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

Material Must First Be Considered. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. In General. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989092405&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the United States Supreme Court considered whether a defendant had to produce two tapes of conversations between an attorney and clients for in camera review to permit the court to decide if they were } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , or whether the conversations were for the purpose of furthering future illegal conduct. In other words, could } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 be compromised to decide if } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 existed, and does independent evidence first have to be considered? Answering t he questions affirmatively, the Supreme Court ruled: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Before engaging in in camera review to determine the applicability of the crimefraud exception, \u8220\'3fthe judge should require a showing of a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person ... that in came ra review of the materials may reveal evidence to establish the claim that the c rime-fraud exception applies.

\par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 490. Under } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRER104&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rule 104(a), Fed. R. Evid }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ., \u8220\'3fany relevant evidence, lawfully obtained\u8221\'3f, but not materia ls that have been determined to be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , may be used for this preliminary determination. Once the proper showing is mad e, the materials in issue may be subjected to in camera inspection to help decid e whether the crime-fraud exception applies. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. The Prima Facie Standard. Various courts have expressed the government\rquote s burden in terms of a prima facie standard. The Supreme Court, in Zolin, left open what, precisely that rubric means. Id. at n. 1. Judge Easterbrook of the Se venth Circuit defined it as \u8220\'3fenough to require explanation\u8221\'3f, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988156352&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_626" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Matter of Feldberg, 862 F.2d 622, 626 (7th Cir. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , and found \u8220\'3fenough\u8221\'3f in the withholding of \u8220\'3fsuspiciou s\u8221\'3f contracts from a production of 51 \u8220\'3finnocent\u8221\'3f contr acts. However, payment of legal fees by an alleged co-conspirator, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_104_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_104_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *104 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 coupled with claims of }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to avoid testifying, does not constitute such a showing. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979113381&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_218" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Proceedings United States v. Lawson, 600 F.2d 215, 218-19 (9th Cir. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Other Formulations of the Standard. The Second Circuit, in an extensive opini on, ruled that the standards \u8220\'3frequire that a prudent person have a reas onable basis to suspect the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a crime or fraud, and that the communications were in furtherance thereof.\u8221\'3f In Re Grand Jury S.D.T. dated Sept. 15, 1983, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984118043&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1039" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Marc Rich & Co. A.G. v. United States, 731 F.2d at 1039 n.3 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and cases cited. The crime or fraud need not have occurred, nor be established definitively; there need only be a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 or fraudulent objective with regard to the client\rquote s communication and a reasonable basis for believing that the objective was wrongful. See In re Antitr ust Grand } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986154242&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Jury Advance Publications, Inc. v. United States, 805 F.2d 155 (6th Cir. 1986) }}}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (government must prove that probable cause exists to believe crime or fraud was committed before crime/fraud exception can be invoked); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992155690&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_95" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 95-6 (3rd Cir. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3f[T]he party seeking discovery must present evidence which, if believ ed by the fact-finder, would be sufficient to support a finding that the element s of the crime-fraud exception were met.\u8221\'3f). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The fact of communication with counsel during the course of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 activity, or that the corporate-respondent purported to be acting upon the advi ce of counsel during the period in question, is not enough to satisfy the requir ement. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986140583&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 a Corporate Grand Jury Witness and \u8220\'3fJohn Doe\u8221\'3f v. United States , 798 F.2d 32 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (utilizing the procedures of in camera submissions of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents by the corporation and affidavit proofs of alleged illegality by the government approved in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982117558&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Re John Doe Corp. v. United States, 675 F.2d 482 (2d Cir. 1982)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. Communications Must Facilitate Crime or Fraud. The requirement that the commu nications be \u8220\'3fin furtherance of [the] crime\u8221\'3f was also stressed in In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986140583&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_34" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A Corporate Grand Jury Witness and \u8220\'3fJohn Doe\u8221\'3f v. United States , 798 F.2d at 34. }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 There, a subpoenaed corporation submitted allegedly } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents to the district judge in camera. The district court held that the doc uments were } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , but that they had to be produced because the clients\rquote communications wi th counsel, recorded in the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_105_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_105_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *105 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents, occurred while the client was engaged in } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 activity. The court of appeals reversed, holding \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The exception applies only when there is probable cause to believe that the comm unications with counsel were intended in some way to facilitate or to conceal th e } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 activity . . . . And the assertion that the corporation was acting upon the adv ice of counsel does not establish without more . . . that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was waived. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986140583&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_32" }{\fldrs lt

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 798 F.2d at 32 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Based on an in camera hearing, the government showed that the attorney who arran ged for his client\rquote s release on bail was engaged to further a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 organization\rquote s plan to obtain legal services for its \u8220\'3fsoldiers\ u8221\'3f in legal difficulty. Accordingly, the attorney had to disclose the ide ntity of the client who engaged him, notwithstanding that such identification mi ght be the last link necessary to implicate the client. The attorney, the court held, was furthering a crime or tort, and the rule of evidence requiring disclos ure was paramount over any canon that compelled the guarding of a confidence. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986142252&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Investigation, 640 F. Supp. 1047 (S.D.W. Va. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Where, in the context of a business reorganization, various business purposes we re sought to be achieved, and where legal advice was obtained concerning the mec hanics and consequences of alternative business strategies, the communications w ere held to be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , even against proof that the client\rquote s overall purpose was to shift asset s away from the reach of the IRS\rquote enforcement powers. In Re Grand Jury S. D.T. dated Sept. 15, 1983, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984118043&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1

.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1039" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Marc Rich & Co. A.G. v. United States, 731 F.2d at 1039 n.3 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and cases cited. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. Distinguishing Past from Ongoing Fraud. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Although the absence of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 relates to \u8220\'3ffuture or ongoing fraud\u8221\'3f, any communications with respect to advice regarding past or completed frauds are within the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See In Re Grand Jury S.D.T. dated Sept. 15, 1983, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984118043&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1041" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Marc Rich & Co. A.G. v. United States, 731 F.2d at 1041 n.3 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and cases cited. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986122362&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Craig v. A.H. Robins Co., 790 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (crime/fraud exception extends to }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_106_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_106_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *106 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 permit discovery of in-house counsel\rquote s deposition testimony taken in pre vious litigation, to prove that in-house counsel ordered destruction of internal documents relevant to both cases). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 E. Ongoing Fraud and Work product. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A client\rquote s continuing wrong justifies invasion of at least a portion of t he \u8220\'3fwork product\u8221\'3f } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In In re Special September 1978 Grand Jury (II); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980117584&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Appeal of United States, 640 F.2d 49 (7th Cir. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the client\rquote s wrongful withholding of information which it was required to disclose to a state election commission empowered a grand jury to subpoena re cords from the law firm which had been engaged by the client both to make filing s with the commission and to defend the client before the grand jury. The findin g of illegality was made from an in camera submission by the government. See for other examples of courts finding a crime-or-fraud exception from a review, in c amera, of withheld documents } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985107106&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984161834&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1

.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Pritchard-Keang Nam Corp. v. Jaworski, 751 F.2d 277 (8th Cir. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985230997&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 472 U.S. 1022 (1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 We . . . hold that the work product doctrine is waived for client fraud even whe n asserted by the attorney except that it is assertable to protect the attorney\ rquote s mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories about the case. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The work product doctrine must yield to a showing of sufficient need by the part y seeking to enforce the subpoena. . . . [W]e must remand for a determination of whether the Grand Jury has shown such extraordinary need as to justify producti on. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980117584&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_63" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 640 F.2d at 63; }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 see also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979113305&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Investigation, 599 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979114327&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_803" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Appeal of FMC Corp.), 604 F.2d 798, 803 (3d Cir. 1 979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (need to be careful to distinguish between past wrong and continuing wrong); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982152613&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Int\rquote l Sys. and Controls Corp. Sec. Litig., 693 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (same, a nexus has to be shown between the continuing wrong and the work produc t); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982118990&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_812" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 812 (D.C. Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (dismissed infra); } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_107_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_107_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *107 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984118043&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1038" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Marc Rich & Co., 731 F.2d at 1038. }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In the view of the court (although others, previously cited seem to differ, the showing of intended wrong-doing must be by proof aliunde the allegedly } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information, at the trial or at a hearing. The proof may well duplicate the sub stantive proof of wrongdoing. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980195030&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_624" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. AT&T, 86 F.R.D. 603, 624-25 (D.D.C. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Report of Special Masters). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 F. Counsel\rquote s Wrong. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The wrong can sometimes be that of the attorney. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982112579&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_261" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. King, 536 F. Supp. 253, 261-62 (C.D. Cal. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Pfaelzer, D.J.), evidence of an attorney\rquote s recommendation to a witness to lie to a grand jury and thus support the attorney\rquote s version of what do cuments had been given to her by her client was held admissible on the ground th at the conversation counseled the commission of a crime, i.e., obstruction of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . (The witness had been wired by the U.S. Attorney and instructed to confine the interview to the witness\rquote proposed testimony, and not to matters involvi ng the defense of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney\rquote s } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 .) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Where a corporation represented that it had disclosed all relevant facts but fai led to identify memoranda of its in-house counsel that contained relevant facts, and where those memoranda were used by management to testify in less than a tru thful fashion, held, the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was waived and was not to be applied. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982118990&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793 (D.C. Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The case involved questionable payments to officials of a foreign government. Th e IRS and SEC instituted policies encouraging full disclosure, and the company h ad developed a program, with independent directors and investigating counsel eng aged by the independent directors, to review the possibility of questionable pay ments, and to make reports to the SEC. A report was made, and the full notes of the investigating counsel were turned over to the SEC. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Subsequently, a grand jury was empaneled, and subpoenaed the documents and notes kept by the in-house counsel of the company. He resisted production, and the co urt of appeals held that two documents were required to be produced because of e xceptions to the work product }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The documents in question were personal documents that had been retained by the in-house } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_108_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_108_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *108 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 counsel, and later transferred to successor counsel. The two documents transcri bed interviews between the in-house counsel and various officers of the company dealing with how an affidavit to be submitted to the IRS should treat some of th e sensitive problems that were involved, and discussions between the in-house co unsel and the investigative counsel that dealt with the same problem. The court held that the doctrines of \u8220\'3fexception\u8221\'3f and \u8220\'3fimplied w aiver\u8221\'3f required disclosure. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982118990&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 807 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The \u8220\'3fexception\u8221\'3f doctrine required disclosure because the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 relationship was used to further a crime, fraud or other fundamental misconduct , perpetrated either by the client or by the attorney. The \u8220\'3fimplied wai ver\u8221\'3f doctrine required disclosure because, if not disclosed, there woul d have been a manipulation of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 truth } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 -seeking process by reason of the company\rquote s representation that everythin g, including work product of counsel, had been turned over, and the objective co nsideration of fairness required disclosure to prevent undue manipulation of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court also ruled on burden of proof and implied waiver; The crime or fraud e xception can require disclosure if either the client or the attorney was engaged in such conduct. \u8220\'3fThe client\rquote s use of an attorney\rquote s effo rts in furtherance of crime or fraud negates the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 .\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982118990&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 812 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Misconduct by an attorney, as well as misconduct by the client, \u8220\'3fnega tes the premise that the adversary system furthers the cause of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 .\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982118990&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

Id. at 815 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The question then addressed was what burden must be proved by the parties seekin g disclosure. There must be a prima facie showing of a violation sufficiently se rious to defeat the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ,\u8221\'3f and \u8220\'3fthe subpoenaed material itself may prove prima facie e vidence of a violation.\u8221\'3f Id. The court held that \u8220\'3fthe governme nt\rquote s showing is sufficient if it proffers evidence that, if believed by a trier of fact, would establish the elements of some violation that was ongoing or about to be committed when the work product was prepared.\u8221\'3f Id. The c ourt went on to say that \u8220\'3fthe standard should not be too precise or rig orous,\u8221\'3f because the work product was involved in helping witnesses fabr icate a story to the SEC, which should not be allowed. Id. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court went on to treat the questions of fairness and waiver. It noted that t he company had made a point of disclosing to the SEC that everything relevant ha d been furnished when, in } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_109_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_109_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *109 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 fact, important information had not been disclosed, and the attorneys\rquote w ork product had not been identified to the SEC. In light of the representation t hat everything had been disclosed, the court said that there had been a waiver a nd, under \u8220\'3fobjective consideration of fairness\u8221\'3f the documents had to be disclosed. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982118990&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 817 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par

} } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986122362&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Craig v. A.H. Robins Co., 790 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (general counsel\rquote s instructions after loss of Dalkon Shield case to dest roy documents held admissible in subsequent suit; } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 held lost); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989110684&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Impounded Case (Law Firm), 879 F.2d 1211 (3d Cir. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (societal interest outweighs erosion of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The same rule may apply where the information that was suppressed was injurious to the defendant. In a nationally-noted case, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984120617&pubNum=162&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 State v. Von Bulow, 475 A.2d 995 (R.I.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984239560&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 469 U.S. 875 (1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the family of an allegedly murdered woman engaged an attorney to investigate t he circumstances of her death. With his clients\rquote authorization, the attor ney funneled selective information to the prosecutor, but not to the defense. Th e court held that all the relevant information should have been disclosed by the prosecutor, and reversed the conviction. The lawyer for the family, by sharing part of his information with the state, had invalidated his claim to work produc t } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 However, the failure of attorneys to disclose information in an ex parte motion for the seizure of property under the Lanham Trademark Act, where disclosure of the information would likely have led to the motion\rquote s denial, did not sta te a cause of action by a competitive company against the attorneys. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992178728&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Electronic Lab. Supply Co. v. Cullen, 977 F.2d 798 (3d Cir. 1992)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court held that defendants, attorneys for Motorola, Inc., could not be pro secuted under the Lanham Trademark Act, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=15USCAS1116&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cb lt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_987500005d964" } {\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 15 U.S.C.A. \u167\'3f 1116(d)(11) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (providing for damages caused by wrongful seizures), for damages resulting from the seizure. The court refused to consider the attorneys to be the \u8220\'3fap plicants\u8221\'3f for the seizures under the Act and, therefore, the attorneys were not liable for failing to disclose the information. The court did recognize the possibility that the applicant, as defendant in a } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=15USCAS1116&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cb lt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_987500005d964" } {\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u167\'3f 1116(d)(11) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 action, might implead the attorneys for legal malpractice. But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989072402&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_935" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Skierkewiecz v. Gonzalez, 711 F. Supp 931, 935 (N.D. Il. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Allegations of the use of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_110_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_110_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *110 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 misleading statements by attorneys on behalf of their client to obtain an ex pa rte seizure under the Lanham Act is sufficient to state a cause of action agains t the attorneys under } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=15USCAS1116&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7 ab161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType =DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u167\'3f 1116(d)(11) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 of the Act.). \par

} } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 G. Counsel\rquote s Ethical and Professional Obligation. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 If a client seeks to commit fraud, is it sufficient for the lawyer to counsel ag ainst the fraud? See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977104484&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Matter of A Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon David Doe, 551 F.2d 899 (2d Cir. 197 7) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (lawyer has right to inform that client has intention to commit crime, and duty if intended crime would corrupt processes of courts and disclosure is believed necessary to prevent such corruption). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. SEC \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 a) In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978123153&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 SEC v. National Student Mktg. Corp., 457 F. Supp. 682 (D.D.C. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , a law firm was held to have aided and abetted a fraud by failing to take steps to defer a merger. Some argue that attorneys should have the burden to disclose a fraud clearly committed during the course of their representation. See 456 Se c. Reg. & L. Rep. (BNA) at A-11 (June 7, 1978) (Recommendations of Institute for Public Interest Representation for Revision of Rule 2(e), SEC Rules of Practice ). In re Keating, Muething & Klekamp, [1979 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. ( CCH) 82,124 (July 2, 1979), involved a censure of a law firm for wilful neglect to ascertain, and disclose, false and misleading statements of its client. A mem ber of the law firm was a director of the client, and his knowledge was imputed to his partners and associates who worked on the client\rquote s registration st atement. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

b) Judge Morris Lasker of New York Southern District drew the rule somewhat more narrowly. Where an attorney foresees that others will rely on his opinion lette r which forms part of a prospectus, reckless conduct on the part of the attorney in forming or expressing his opinion will make him liable as an aider and abett er. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981151362&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Morgan v. Prudential Group, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 957 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984213281&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 729 F.2d 1443 (2d Cir. 1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court held that counsel in this context, tax counsel with regard to an off ering having large tax implications was held to have a fiduciary or other specia l relationship to prospective investors. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_111_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_111_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *111 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 c) The SEC, in dismissing charges against two New York lawyers, emphasized its jurisdiction under Rule 2(e) of its Rules of Practice to define standards of pro fessional representation. Matter of Carter and Johnson, [1981 Transfer Binder] F ed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 82,847 (Adm. file 3-5464, February 28, 1981). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li540 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . . . if a lawyer violates ethical or professional standards, or becomes a consc ious participant in violations of the securities laws, or performs his professio nal function without regard to the consequences, it will not do to say that beca use the lawyer\rquote s duty is to his client alone, this Commission must stand helplessly by while the lawyer carries his } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 of appearing and practicing before the Commission on to the next client. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The lawyer is charged with taking \u8220\'3fall efforts within reason\u8221\'3f upon becoming aware of \u8220\'3fsubstantial and continuing\u8221\'3f violations , and with making reasonable and appropriate representations, if the wrongdoers in management remain adamant, to other managers, to the Board of Directors and, in the last analysis, to resign if \u8220\'3fthe involvement of his client\rquot e s management and board of directors in misconduct is so through-going and perv asive that any action short of resignation would be futile.\u8221\'3f No prescri ption is established for what a lawyer has to do for, the decision recognizes, e very action may have serious implications. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li540 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 So long as a lawyer is acting in good faith and exerting reasonable efforts to p revent violations of the law by his client, his professional obligations have be en met. In general, the best result is that which promotes the continued, strong -minded and independent participation by the lawyer. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li540 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The cases where a lawyer has to resign, the Commission observed, \u8220\'3fwould be rare and of an egregious nature.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 d) The SEC proposed to codify its decision ( } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&pubNum=6509&cite=RELNO33-6344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rel. 33-6344) (9/21/81) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , and stated its position as follows: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li540 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 When a lawyer with significant responsibilities in the effectuation of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_112_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_112_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *112 } }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 a company\rquote s compliance with the disclosure requirements of the federal s ecurities laws becomes aware that his client is engaged in a substantial and con tinuing failure to satisfy those disclosure requirements, his continued particip ation violates professional standards unless he takes prompt steps to end the cl ient\rquote s noncompliance. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 IV Legal Times No. 16, Sep. 21, 1981 at 4. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 e) The American Bar Association and other bar associations filed oppositions to the SEC\rquote s proposed interpretation regarding professional misconduct. See IV Legal Times of Washington No. 27, December 7, 1981, at 25. The ABA cited EC 7 -5 of the Model Code of Professional Responsibility: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li540 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A lawyer . . . may continue in the representation of a client even though his cl ient has elected to pursue a course of conduct contrary to the advice of the law yer so long as he does not thereby knowingly assist a client to engage in illega l conduct or to take a frivolous legal position. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A lawyer should never encourage or aid his client to commit } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 acts or counsel his client on how to violate the law and avoid punishment there for. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 f) See, also, Kripke, The } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0101377946&pubNum=1105&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_1105_201" }{\fl drslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 SEC Corporate Governance and the Real Issues, 36 Bus. Law 173, 201 (1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Professor Kripke argued that counsel should not be made into a \u8220\'3freluc

tant police corps\u8221\'3f of the SEC, nor should the independent members of th e board of directors be made the final arbiters of corporate policy to whom the reluctant policemen must resort if their advice as to a question of illegality o r even of policy is not followed by management. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 g) The SEC did not succeed in this effort. But, in In re George C. Kern, Jr. [19 88-89 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 84,342 (Nov. 14, 1988), aff\rquot e d, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&pubNum=6509&cite=RELNO29356&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1. 0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Exchange Act Rel. No. 29,356 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 [current] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 84,815 (June 21, 1991), it tried a different tack, seeking to find a lawyer responsible as \u8220\'3fa cause\u8221\'3f throug h negligence, of an issuer\rquote s failure adequately to disclose. The principa l outside counsel and director of an issuer was held to be \u8220\'3fa cause\u82 21\'3f of the issuer\rquote s failure } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_113_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_113_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *113 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 timely to amend a Schedule 14 D-9 (a disclosure statement required to be filed with the SEC) in \u8220\'3fnegligence\u8221\'3f in not bringing about the timely amendment. The Administrative Law Judge held that it was not necessary to prove that the lawyer \u8220\'3fcounseled a cause of illegality,\u8221\'3f or \u8220\ '3faided and abetted\u8221\'3f his client\rquote s violation. However, this admi nistrative Law Judge, noting that the lawyer, at the time of decision, was no lo nger the issuer\rquote s counsel or a member of its board, discontinued the proc eedings, holding that the SEC lacked the power to order future compliance with t he law generally. The SEC affirmed the discontinuance under its then existing st atutory powers. The Remedies Act of 1990, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=l&pubNum=1077005&cite=UUID(I2892FD2184-6042A18A3AC-FD2243A9121)&originatio nContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc. Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Pub. L. No. 101-429, 104 Stat. 931, }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 958, now gives the SEC that power. See Ferrara, Ferigno and Darland, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0102585057&pubNum=1105&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_1105_91" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hardball! the SEC\rquote s New Arsenal of Enforcement Weapons, 47 The Business L

awyer 33, 91 (1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 h) In the fallout of Salomon Brothers Inc.\rquote s (\u8220\'3fSalomon\u8221\'3f ) treasury bond scandal (see SEC v. Mozer, SDNY 92 Civ. 8694, filed December 2, 1992), the SEC has established new ground rules for the enforcement of the super visory roles of corporate counsel. Donald Feurstein, Salomon\rquote s chief lega l officer, had been made aware of false bids on treasury bonds made by Salomon b rokers. Fuerstein advised Salomon to report the incident to the SEC. No report w as filed and Feurstein took no further action beyond continuing to insist on the reporting of the incident. The SEC, rather than naming Feurstein in the lawsuit , took the opportunity to outline the role of \u8220\'3fsupervisors\u8221\'3f un der sections 15(b)(4)(E) and 15(b)(6) of the \lquote 34 Act. Section 15(b)(4)(E) provides the SEC with the power to limit activities, suspend or revoke the lice nses of a broker or of any person associated with a broker who \u8220\'3fhas fai led reasonably to supervise, with a view to preventing violations . . . another person who commits such a violation, if such other person is subject to his supe rvision.\u8221\'3f As chief legal officer and one who had knowledge of the facts of the fraud committed, Feurstein met the criteria for being a supervisor. As s uch, he had a responsibility \u8220\'3ffor taking reasonable and appropriate act ion. It [was] not sufficient for one in such a position to be a mere bystander t o the events that occurred.\u8221\'3f As a warning to other corporate counsels, the SEC stated that proper conduct by Feurstein should have included \u8220\'3fd irecting that an investigation be made, disclosing the matter to the firm\rquote s board of directors, resigning from the firm\rquote s or disclosing the matter to regulators.\u8221\'3f } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_114_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_114_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *114 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0106144990&pubNum=3133&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_3133_1796" }{\f ldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Former Salomon Officials Named in SEC and Administative Action, 24 Sec. Reg. & L . Rep. (BNA) 1795, 1796 (December 12, 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Although the SEC took no action against Feurstein, it is clear that the SEC ha s taken this opportunity to warn corporate counsel to be diligent in preventing violations. \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Savings & Loans \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 a) The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the duty to require outside counsel to cond uct investigations of the information presented to it by its client. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992117724&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 FDIC v. O\rquote Melveny & Meyers, 969 F.2d 744 (9th Cir. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the court reversed a summary judgment motion and remanded the case for trial. The court found that if a trier of fact determines that O\rquote Melveny was neg ligent, \u8220\'3fthe Firm\rquote s negligence would not be based upon its decli nation to \lquote ferret out fraud\rquote , but rather because it failed to make a reasonable, independent investigation.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992117724&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 749 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Thus, O\rquote Melveny\rquote s duty was not only to protect investors, but al so to protect its client. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 b) Enforcement actions against lawyers have also become popular as a result of t he Savings & Loan crisis. Both the Office of Thrift Supervision (\u8220\'3fOTS\u 8221\'3f) and the Resolution Trust Corporation (\u8220\'3fRTC\u8221\'3f) have re cently used threatened court action to reach settlements with firms who had repr esented defunct Savings and Loans. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The OTS used its ability to freeze assets prior to judicial intervention to forc e the law firm of Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and Handler to settle. The OTS ha d filed an action alleging that Kaye Scholer had defrauded the public by \u8220\ '3fknowingly misleading regulators, backdating key financial documents, and with holding crucial information from the government about the health of Keating\rquo te s thrift\u8221\'3f, amounting to over $275 million. Legal Times at 13 (March 9, 1992). The suit alleged knowledge of the firm that the Lincoln Savings and Lo an, its client, backdated documents to fall within the grandfather clause of gov ernment regulations. This knowledge was not provided to government regulators. T he OTS sought documents under the crime-fraud exception to claimed } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 by Kaye Scholer. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The act of freezing the assets of the firm forced the firm to settle in the amou nt of $41 million rather than risking a loss of business and possible bankruptcy . The settlement terms have raised an alarm throughout the legal community. The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_115_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_115_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *115 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 settlement required Kaye, Scholer to accept a very strict standard of disclosur e in banking matters. \u8220\'3fKaye Scholer may not omit from communications wi th regulators material facts regarding a thrift when the firm knows they may be relevant to the agency\rquote s view of the law, even when that view differs fro m Kaye Scholer\rquote s view. If Kaye Scholer\rquote s conclusion on a particula r matters differs from that of a law firm previously retained by the same client , it must submit both conclusions to regulators.\u8221\'3f N.Y.L.J at 1 (March 1 3, 1992). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 These standards go beyond those required under the ABA\rquote s Model Rules of P rofessional Responsibility. The OTS has already taken preliminary steps to enfor ce the settlement against all firms in their representations of thrifts. OTS Gen

eral Counsel has proposed changes in the letter circulated by thrifts to their o utside counsel that would include promises by the attorneys \u8220\'3fthat they have advised their client about its regulatory duties\u8221\'3f and \u8220\'3fbr ing to the attention of the thrift board of directors transactions believed to v iolate regulations and to resign the representation if the transaction should ta ke place.\u8221\'3f Edward A. Adams, Thrift Litigation Fallout; Suits Increasing ; Firm Grip On Lawyers Sought, N.Y.L.J. at 5 (June 18, 1992). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Conclusion \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 None of this is satisfactory. If an issuer fails to conform to law, and rejects the good faith and strong advice of its lawyer, the lawyer cannot be said to hav e been either negligent or wilful. The dilemma for the lawyer arises at the time he is called upon to do something: for example at the time he is asked to prepa re a subsequent filing, or perhaps if he is asked to draft a resolution for boun d action that implicates the prior violation. The lawyer should not assist the c lient in furthering or perpetuating a wrong. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 H. Potential } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Exposures -- Environmental and Tax Implications. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 If state or federal law commands certain acts to be performed and } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 penalties are provided for wilful violations, does a lawyer\rquote s advice aga inst performance constitute aiding and abetting a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 violation, thereby exposing the lawyer to } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 penalties? This is the issue posed by the securities disclosure cases discussed above. But problems exist in other cases as well. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_116_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_116_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *116 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See Cohen and Bloch Can Lawyers Be Prosecuted For The Advice They Give?, N.Y.L. J., July 23, 1991. Thus, in a California case they describe, a lawyer was charge d with felony violations of an environmental statute for advice given to a bankr uptcy client concerning the removal of toxic waste. The prosecutor asserted that he could sustain a conviction (and uphold an indictment) if the \u8220\'3flawye r \lquote knew or reasonably should have known\rquote that he was causing the i mproper disposal of hazardous and radioactive waste;\u8221\'3f the good faith of the lawyer is legally irrelevant to his guilt or innocence. Cohen and Bloch ass ert that even if the lawyer\rquote s good faith cannot protect him, his powerles sness to control the actions of the company should, be a defense. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975129802&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (recognizing a \u8220\'3fpowerlessness\u8221\'3f defense to prosecution under s trict liability } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 statutes). \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Another potentially difficult situation involves lawyers representing targets of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 tax investigations. Cohen and Bloch explain that the lawyer may be prompted to advise the client that his filing of returns after a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 investigation has begun may incriminate him and, therefore, possibly not be adv isable. Is the attorney thereby counseling the client to commit, that is, aiding and abetting the commission of, a crime -- the willful failure to file a federa l income tax return -- and does the attorney thus expose himself to } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 prosecution? If the client is prosecuted for such failure, the client presumabl y has an advice-of-counsel defense. But what is the attorney\rquote s defense? T he attorney\rquote s dilemma, thus, is to choose between counseling in good fait h as to the lesser choice of evils -- confronting the client, and the attorney\r quote s own self-interest. As the United States Supreme Court ruled in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981101939&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_392" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 392 (1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , a broad scope of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 promotes the ability of corporate attorneys to formulate sound advice when thei r client is faced with a specific legal problem. . .in light of the vast array o f regulatory legislation confronting corporations or, for that matter, other cli ents as well. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 I. Corporate Counsel\rquote s Duty Under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to Disclose Information Imparted by Corporate Intermediaries in Confidence. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Discussion. Corporate counsel represents an organization as an entity distinc t } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_117_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_117_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *117 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 from its directors, officers, employees or shareholders and, as such, often mus t determine whether the intermediary is acting in the best interests of the clie nt -- the organization -- and, if not, how to proceed with respect to damaging i nformation received in confidence. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rule 1.13 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 52 U.S.L.W. 2077 (1983), s uggests action for the lawyer to take in cases where the intermediary perhaps is not serving its client. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 If the lawyer knows that an officer or employee of the corporation is engaged in or intends to engage in conduct that is a violation of a legal obligation to th e corporation, or a violation of law that might be imputed to the corporation an d result in \u8220\'3fmaterial injury\u8221\'3f to it, he is required, under rul e 1.13(b), to \u8220\'3fproceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 If preliminary remedial devices fail -- e.g., asking for reconsideration of the matter, advising that a separate legal opinion should be sought, and referring t he matter as far as the highest authority in the organization the lawyer may res ign in accordance with rule 1.16, which permits withdrawal, if such withdrawal c an be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the clien t. \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The attorney\rquote s conduct with respect to his knowledge of the fraud of the intermediaries is, of course, subject to his duty under rule 1.6 to keep client information confidential and his duty under rule 3.3 to refrain from committing fraud on a tribunal. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rule 1.16, as adopted, is substantially changed from prior proposed drafts of th e Rule, which permitted the lawyer to disclose the information gained in or rela ting to the representation of the organization if he reasonably believed that \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (1) The highest authority of the organization has acted to further the personal or financial interests of members of that authority which are in conflict with t he interests of the organization; and \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (2) Disclosure of the information is necessary in the best interests of the orga nization, Model Rules of Professional } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_118_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_118_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *118 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Conduct Rule 1.12 (Working Draft February 6, 1981). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Compare } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979137005&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Touche Ross & Co. v. SEC, 609 F.2d 570 (2d Cir. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (suggesting that accountants and, by dictum, lawyers have professional obligati on to assure that their clients act in accordance with law) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

[t]he Commission necessarily must rely heavily on both the accounting and legal professions to perform their tasks diligently and responsibly. Breaches of profe ssional responsibility jeopardize the achievement of the objectives of the secur ities laws and can inflict great damage on public investors . . .\rquote In our complex society the accountants\rquote certificates or the lawyer\rquote s opi nion can be instruments for inflicting pecuniary loss more potent than a chisel or a crowbar.\rquote \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 with } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979101626&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 SEC v. Arthur Young & Co., 590 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (accountants are not extensions of the SEC\rquote s enforcement powers). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See also Felts v. National Account Sys. Ass\rquote n, Inc., 500 Sec. Reg. & L. R ep. (BNA) at A-4 (D. Miss., Apr. 17, 1979) (attorney held to have violated antif raud provisions of securities laws). Cf. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981128974&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Stokes v. Lokken, 644 F.2d 779 (8th Cir. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (holding that attorney who furnished erroneous opinion to accountants as to whe ther certain bulk sales of coins were subject to federal and state securities la ws and therefore unlawful, did not violate \u167\'3f 10(b) because, absent knowl edge that opinion was incorrect, attorney lacked the requisite scienter; a duty of independent factual inquiry was rejected \u8220\'3fin these circumstances\u82 21\'3f as \u8220\'3fmak[ing] it unreasonably difficult for clients to obtain leg al advice, or for lawyers to maintain a busy practice\u8221\'3f). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In SEC v. Calhoun Co. Med. Facility, Inc., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 98,243 (N.D. Miss., 1981), bond counsel, who, the SEC charged, had failed to include certain financial statements in a bond offering circular, avoided an SEC Rule 2(e) disci plinary proceeding by consenting to undertake to have his firm, inter alia, conv ene biweekly meetings with all partners and associates involved in bond distribu tions to review all pending matters; require the approval of at least three part ners } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_119_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_119_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *119 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 before any legal opinion is issued by the firm affecting the distribution of se curities; require partners and associates practicing securities law to attend, a t least annually; continuing legal education programs on securities laws; and de cline to participate in any industrial development bond offering unless the issu er, underwriter, and other participants are each represented by counsel knowledg eable about the requirements of the securities laws. See for all of the above, I V Legal Time of Washington, No. 2, June 15, 1981, at 1. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Suing a Former Attorney in the Context of Litigation Against the Client. May a client sue his former attorney for disclosing confidences if litigation agains t the client results? See Drucker v. Wilkie, Farr & Gallagher, (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co . filed Feb. 26, 1979); cf. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974110799&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Meyerhofer v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 497 F.2d 1190 (2d Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974205455&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 419 U.S. 998 (1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (right of attorney to clear name even if doing so is adverse to client\rquote s interest). In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977129643&pubNum=602&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 People v. Dolkart, 60 A.D.2d 238, 400 N.Y.S.2d 520 (1st Dep\rquote t 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , an attorney found guilty of embezzling funds from a client received a reduced sentence in consideration for disclosures to SEC adverse to his client\rquote s interests. In an action against the client by the SEC, the Court held that the i nformation disclosed by the attorney could be used against the client. See SEC v . Gulf & Western Ind., Inc., discussed supra at Section VIII. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 J. Counsel\rquote s Ethical and Professional Obligations to Tribunals and Third Parties. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The American Bar Association, in August 1983 attempted to resolve the six years of debate and controversy surrounding this issue in its adoption of the Model Ru les of Professional Conduct, 52 U.S.L.W. 2077. Under rule 3.3(a)(2), an attorney is required to \u8220\'3fdisclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 or fraudulent act by the client.\u8221\'3f Rule 3.3(a)(4) forbids him to offer evidence he knows to be false; if he has already offered such evidence and he co mes to know of its falsity, he is required to take \u8220\'3freasonable remedial measures,\u8221\'3f either by withdrawing or, if such withdrawal will not remed y the situation or is impossible, by making disclosure to the court. These stric tures apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise prot ected by rule 1.6, relating to confidentiality of client information. Rule 3.3(b ). The Rule is limited, however, to those situations where the lawyer knows } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_120_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_120_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *120 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 the client has committed perjury; the lawyers suspicions are not enough. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The comment to rule 3.3 states that if disclosure would constitute a violation o f a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 defendant\rquote s constitutional rights, the requirements of the rule are \u82 20\'3fsubordinate to such a Constitutional requirement.\u8221\'3f Thus, a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 defendant who admits guilt, may still plead not guilty forcing the state to pro ve its case and the attorney may assist the client in his plea. The attorney may not, however, knowingly permit the defendant to commit perjury. The attorney ha s a duty to the court to prevent the perjury and prevent it from playing a part in the judgment of the court. This duty to reveal false evidence is not contradi ctory to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , for \u8220\'3fimplicit in the promise of confidentiality is its nonapplicabili ty where the client seeks the unlawful end of corrupting the judicial process by false evidence.\u8221\'3f ABA opinion 87-353 (1987), p. 6. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Any attempt to circumvent Rule 3.3 by not asking the client about all the facts in the case (and thus not knowing if the client has given false testimony) } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3fcould be a violation of . . . [the attorney\rquote s] duties under Rul e 3.3 and their duty to provide competent representation under Rule 1.1.\u8221\' 3f ABA opinion 87-353, n. 9. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rule 3.3 was the subject of a great deal of controversy prior to its adoption. S ee, e.g., M.H. Freedman, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0102783331&pubNum=101&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Lawyer-Client Confidences: The Model Rules\rquote Radical Assault on Tradition, 68 A.B.A.J. 428 (April 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The history of the ABA efforts from the first canons of 1908 to the present ar e described in Burke, The } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0101377948&pubNum=1105&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Duty of Confidentiality and Disclosing Corporate Misconduct, 36 Bus. Law. 239 (1 981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . For criticism of the canons for encouraging a moral autonomy and non-accountab ility to lawyers, acting consistently with promulgated canons but nevertheless t oo willing to carry out morally criticizable acts of their clients, see D. Luban , } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0101732540&pubNum=3050&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Partisanship, Betrayal and Autonomy in the Lawyer-Client Relationship: A Reply t o Stephen Ellmann, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 1004 (1990) }}} \par } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 K. Counsel\rquote s Ethical and Professional Improprieties Not Basis of Claim. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In the absence of a legally sufficient claim under the securities laws, a federa l court should not have decided that violations of the Code of Professional Resp onsibility constituted a cause } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_121_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_121_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *121 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 of action under state law. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982123178&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1

.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Financial Gen. Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger, 680 F.2d 768 (D.C. Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The attorney had participated actively in support of a dissident group of shar eholders without making fair disclosure to the management which had employed him , had participated in the sale of a controlling block of the company\rquote s st ock to an insurgent group and had violated professional confidences. The court o f appeals held that the district court had abused its discretion by retaining pe ndant jurisdiction over \u8220\'3fnovel and unsettled questions of state law\u82 21\'3f after dismissing the federal claim. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Corporate counsel in an Illinois company, having failed in an effort to persuade the President to stop selling defective and dangerous kidney dialysis machine, was fired. He disclosed the situation to the FDA, and the FDA seized the product as adulterated. The Illinois Supreme Court, in a divided opinion held that coun sel was not entitled, the same as other employees, to sue for a retaliatory disc harge. The Rule of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.6) required him to have acted as he did, he did not need the protection of the act, and it would compromise the policies of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to allow such suit. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3f[Employers] might be hesitant to turn to their in-house counsel for ad vice regarding potentially questionable conduct knowing that their in-house coun sel could use this information in a retaliatory discharge suit.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991205457&pubNum=578&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Balla v. Gambro, Inc., 145 Ill. 2d 492, 584 N.E. 2d 104 (1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . For a discussion of cases stemming from alleged retaliatory discharges of in-h ouse counsel, see Sara A. Corello, Note, In} {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0102256824&pubNum=3050&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 House Counsel\rquote s Right to Sue for Retaliatory Discharge, 92 Colum. L. Rev. 389 (1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 L. Exception for Abuse of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 may be overcome \u8220\'3fnot only where fraud or crime is involved, but also w here there are other substantial abuses of the }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 relationship.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1973104135&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_180" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 International Tel. & Tel. Corp. v. United Tel. Co., 60 F.R.D. 177, 180 (M.D. Fla . 1973) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Thus: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 An accused charged with homicide confided to counsel that other homicides were c ommitted by him, and confirmed the confidence by } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_122_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_122_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *122 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 showing counsel the dead bodies. Held, counsel could not be indicted of violati ng provisions of the Public Health Law requiring prompt burials and reporting of death, for \u8220\'3fthe [ } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ] } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 effectively shielded\u8221\'3f counsel. The court noted, however, that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was neither absolute nor all-encompassing. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 [A]n attorney must protect his client\rquote s interest, but also must observe b asic human standards of decency, having due regard to the need that the legal sy stem accord } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to the interests of society and its individual members. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975124233&pubNum=602&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 People v. Belge, 50 A.D.2d 1088, 376 N.Y.S.2d 771 (4th Dep\rquote t 1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1977100496&pubNum=605&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 41 N.Y.2d 60 (1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Identity of Potential } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Defendant \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, recently ruled that an attorney had to disclose the name of a client facing potential } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and civil actions. The client was allegedly the hit and run driver of a car tha t struck and killed Vincent Fiorito. His daughter, wishing to bring a wrongful d eath suit, brought her action against the driver\rquote s attorney to force disc losure of the drivers name before the statute of limitations ran. The court foun d that \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The general rule is that such information is not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and must be revealed. (cite omitted) The rationale behind this general rule bei

ng that since the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 hinges upon a communication being made for the purpose of obtaining legal advic e and since the identity of a client is not relevant to the advice given, the cl ient\rquote s identity is not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Matter of D\rquote Alesio, N.Y.L.J., Oct. 2, 1992 at 28 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westches ter Co.). The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 has been extended to a client\rquote s identity where it is necessary to protec

t a client fearing harm. However, the court found that the fear in the immediate case was that of prosecution and not of physical harm. Thus, the court conclude d \u8220\'3fthat the honor of the legal profession and the integrity of legitima te legal process require this information to be revealed.\u8221\'3f Id. An appea l was taken, but the Appellate Division refused to issue a stay of the depositio n. The attorney, at the subsequent } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_123_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_123_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *123 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 deposition, reportedly continued to refuse to disclose his client\rquote s name . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Compare a prior Florida court decision, referred to in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992194373&pubNum=735&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Dean v. Dean, 607 So.2d 494 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , which held that an attorney did not have to disclose the identity of a client who may have killed a man in a hit and run accident. Judge Timothy Poulton of th e State Circuit Court in West Palm Beach ruled that the client\rquote s identity was protected by the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Publicity from this case led an unidentified person to contact the lawyer for legal advice concerning a robbery. Upon the discovery of this relationship, the robbery victim brought suit against the lawyer seeking the identity of his clien t. The Dean court found that the client\rquote s contacting of the lawyer indica ted his strong desire to keep his identity confidential. Thus, the court held th at the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , under the last-link doctrine, applied to prevent disclosure. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Similarly, in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981132198&pubNum=233&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 People v. Meredith, 29 Cal. 3d 682 (1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the California Supreme Court ruled that an observation by defense counsel or h is investigation, which is the product of a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communication, may not be admitted into evidence, \u8220\'3fbut the statutory } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 does not bar revelation of the original location or condition of the evidence\u 8221\'3f when there has been a removal or alteration of the evidence sufficient to deprive the prosecution of access. 50 U.S.L.W. 2114 (July 20, 1981). \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Custody. In a custody case, the paternal aunt abducted the child placed by th e mother in her temporary custody. From Puerto Rico, the aunt gave her address t o her attorney in New York, who had until then not been aware of her plan. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The attorney was ordered to disclose the address. The interest of the state as p arens patriae was paramount, and the client had communicated her address inciden t to \u8220\'3fdeliberate attempts to avoid a court mandate concerning custody o f a child,\u8221\'3f a communication that had little social value. Matter of the } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979118921&pubNum=605&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Appointment of a Guardian for Jacqueline F., 47 N.Y.2d 215 (1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Judge Fuchsberg, dissenting, argued that the narrowing of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 would close down the only channel of communication, a channel that might be nee ded to negotiate a surrender of client and child. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Whereabouts of Client. The New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, following Matter of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_124_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_124_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *124 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979118921&pubNum=605&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_605_215" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Jacqueline F., 47 N.Y.2d at 215 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1980137824&pubNum=605&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Priest v. Hennessy, Jr., 51 N.Y.2d 62 (1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , and disagreeing with an opinion of the Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Opinion 81-13, N.Y .L.J., December 31, 1982, at 1), held that an attorney is required to testify be fore a grand jury as to the whereabouts of his client. The defendant was an alle ged fugitive from } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , having failed to appear for trial of an indictment of manslaughter. The defend ant had consulted his attorney regarding a motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of constitutional rights to a speedy trial, and the attorney\rquote s knowledge had been gained through the consultations in connection with that enga gement. The attorney refused to testify, relying on the Committee on Professiona l and Judicial Ethics of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, whi ch opined that the attorney \u8220\'3fmay, but need not, disclose his client\rqu ote s whereabouts.\u8221\'3f The court held, however, that the attorney had the legal obligation to testify and disclose his client\rquote s whereabouts. Issues of a client\rquote s identity and location are matters that do not \u8220\'3fal ways fall within the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (citing } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976102957&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas served upon Field, et ano., 408 F. Supp. 1169 (S. D.N.Y. 1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ). The court held that even though there was no allegation that the attorney was counselling his client to avoid responding to court summonses, or otherwise aid ing his client in the commission of the continuing crime of bail jumping, counse l could not \u8220\'3fcloak himself with the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 shield.\u8221\'3f \u8220\'3f[B]oth the law and ethics dictate that such shield not be invoked, and that the attorney divulge such information to the proper aut horities, namely, the grand jury of Suffolk County.\u8221\'3f Matter of John Doe , N.Y.L.J., Dec. 17, 1982, at 17, col. 4 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co.). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. Bail-Jumping. In bail-jumping cases, attorneys must disclose the whereabouts of clients, even if the clients had confided this information. ABA Comm. on Prof essional Ethics, Formal Op. 155, 22 A.B.A.J. 502 (1936); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979120069&pubNum=551&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Matter of Jane Doe, 101 Misc. 2d 388 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics, Ass\rquote n of Bar, City o f N.Y. expressed its opinion that a lawyer is not obligated to disclose the wher eabouts of his client if his client is a fugitive. He may do so under DR 4-101(C )(3) if the flight constitutes a crime. He is not required to withdraw from the representation, but he may do so if the client persists in the crime. The lawyer should not knowingly advise or } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_125_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_125_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *125 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 help his client to remain a fugitive. See Op. 81-13, N.Y.L.J. at. 1 (Dec. 31, 1 981). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 M. Client\rquote s Insistence on Perjury. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

What is a lawyer\rquote s obligation when his client insists on perjury? Under t he ABA\rquote s Model Rules of Professional Conduct rule 3.3, a lawyer may not o ffer false evidence, regardless of the client\rquote s wishes. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 If the client wishes to offer such evidence, the lawyer \u8220\'3fshould seek to persuade the client that the evidence should not be offered or if it has been o ffered, that its false character should immediately be disclosed.\u8221\'3f Comm ent to rule 3.3. If this persuasion is ineffective, the rule mandates that the l awyer take \u8220\'3freasonable remedial measures.\u8221\'3f The Comment to rule 3.3 states that \u8220\'3f[e]xcept in the defense of a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 accused, the rule generally recognized is that, if necessary to rectify the sit uation, an advocate must disclose the existence of the client\rquote s deception to the court or to the other party.\u8221\'3f Id. Although this disclosure may result in grave consequences to the client including loss of the case and prosec ution for perjury, this is deemed to be preferable to the lawyer\rquote s cooper ating in deceiving the court. When the client is a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 defendant, the lawyer\rquote s proper course is to seek to withdraw from the ca se if he cannot persuade the client to testify truthfully. If withdrawal will no t remedy the situation or is impossible, the lawyer should make disclosure to th e court. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 When a client is engaged in fraudulent conduct that does not constitute fraud on a tribunal, the lawyer does not have a duty to disclose such fraudulent conduct . In fact, although he may not knowingly assist in the client\rquote s fraud, he is not permitted to reveal it (Rule 1.2) except to the extent necessary to \u82 20\'3fprevent the client from committing a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 act that he believes is likely to result in imminent death or substantial bodil y harm.\u8221\'3f Rule 1.6(b)(1). If his services will be used by the client in

materially furthering the client\rquote s } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 or fraudulent conduct, the lawyer must withdraw, but he is not permitted to mak e disclosure of the client\rquote s confidences. Comment to rule 1.6. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Conflicts with ABA Ethics Opinions. The above rule conflicts with previous AB A ethics opinions which, even though recognizing that a lawyer has an obligation to reveal his client\rquote s perjury to a tribunal, mandate that a lawyer shou ld } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_126_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_126_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *126 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 not reveal \u8220\'3fsecrets\u8221\'3f learned confidentially in his profession al relationship. See ABA Comm. on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Op. 34 1 (1975), discussed supra by M.H. Freedman. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. ABA Model Rule. It is not clear what effect the ABA model rule will have on t he attitude the courts have taken toward disclosure of client secrets to a tribu nal. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978118511&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Lowery v. Cardwell, 575 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d, 25 N.J. 416 (1988), holds, in a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 case, that the lawyer should call the client to the stand and permit him to tes tify in narrative fashion. The lawyer should not put specific questions, and he

should not withdraw from the case where withdrawal would create adverse inferenc es against the client. Cf. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981144582&pubNum=661&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 People v. Schultheis, 638 P.2d 8 (Colo. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . There, the court ruled that an appointed attorney, seeking to withdraw as coun sel because his client insisted on subpoenaing two witnesses to testify falsely in order to prove an alibi, should have been allowed to withdraw, but that it wa s improper for the attorney to tell the facts to the trial judge. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980149108&pubNum=551&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 People v. Albaracon Salquerro, 107 Misc. 2d 155 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the court ruled that it was proper for the attorney to advise the trial judge, and it ruled that the attorney, thereafter, should continue with the case, for the defendant might attempt the same tactics with a new attorney with fewer ethi cal standards or use the strategy to delay trial. See also Albert I. Borowitz, T he } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0101344121&pubNum=101&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Janitor\rquote s Story: An Ethical Dilemma in the Harvard Murder Case, 66 A.B.A. J. 1540 (December 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (for an account of a similar incident occurring in 1849). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Both for corporations and individuals, the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 serves the function of promoting full and frank communications between attorney s and their clients. It thereby encourages observance of the law and aids in the administration of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985121788&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 CFTC v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343 (1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981101939&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_389" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. at 389 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Sixth Amendment Concerns. A defendant is not denied effective representation, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, if counsel threatens to disclose perjury to the judge in order to induce the client to testify truthfully, even if the resul t, arguably, is a conviction. In Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 15 (1986), the clien t proposed to testify that he saw a metallic object in the hands of the person } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_127_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_127_1}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *127 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 he shot, an account of self defense that contradicted his earlier statement to his attorney. Counsel threatened to disclose to the court his opinion that perju ry was intended and, in face of that threat, the accused testified only that he thought the person had a gun. The defendant was convicted of murder; the convict ion was reversed by the Iowa Supreme Court; and the Supreme Court reinstated the judgment of murder, holding that counsel\rquote s conduct was within the range of permissible and ethical behavior. See Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rul e 1.2, \u8220\'3f(d) a lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 or fraudulent. . . .\u8221\'3f; see Code Prof. Resp. DR7-102(A)(7); Nix v. Whit eside, 475 U.S. at 167, n.4. The Code of Professional Responsibility, however, d oes not give counsel the right to disclose a fraud that has already been perpetr ated upon a person or a tribunal if the information is a \u8220\'3fconfidence or secret\u8221\'3f and the client refuses or is unable to do so. DR7-102(B). The ethical dilemma of defense counsel and the Constitutional commands of a zealous defense are described in an excellent article, R.G. Morvillo, White-Collar Crime : Ethical Conundrums, 193 N.Y.L.J. 1 (June 4, 1985). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 N. Further with Regard to Relations Between Court and Counsel. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A district judge\rquote s cautionary remarks to counsel in a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 case, that a defense urged upon counsel by his client, if pursued, raised quest ions about counsel\rquote s \u8220\'3fgood faith and ethics\u8221\'3f and might compromise \u8220\'3fan obligation you have to the court, and I would think to y our profession and, in the final analysis, to the Bar,\u8221\'3f was held possib ly to affect counsel\rquote s ability to represent his client with zeal. The cou rt of appeals remanded for further evidence to ascertain if pursuit of the defen se could have affected the outcome and, if that were to be so, ruled that the ca se would have to be reversed for ineffective assistance of counsel. See

} {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983146141&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Torres, 719 F.2d 549 (2d Cir. 1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Counsel for plaintiff had an ethical duty to advise the court and opposing couns el that plaintiff had died a few weeks prior to the settlement, at least where p laintiff\rquote s death, in a case where he would have been an excellent witness , had a significant bearing on the outcome and on defendants\rquote willingness to settle. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_128_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_128_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *128 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983144539&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Virzi v. Grand Trunk Warehouse & Cold Storage Co., 571 F. Supp. 507 (E.D. Mich. 1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court took note of the new Model Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4.1, which provides that although a lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing wi th others, generally he \u8220\'3fhas no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts.\u8221\'3f However, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCPR25&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 requires that there be a suggestion of death on the record and a substitution o f the executor in the event of death, and the duty of candor owed to the court r equired disclosure of the fact of death of a client. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Although it presents a more difficult judgment call, this Court is of the opinio n that the same duty of candor and fairness required a disclosure to opposing co

unsel, even though counsel did not ask whether the client was still alive. Each lawyer owes an affirmative duty of candor and fairness to the Court and to oppos ing counsel when such a major event as the death of the plaintiff has taken plac e. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 O. Counsel\rquote s Scope in Preparing Witnesses. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A lawyer may suggest language for testimony, even if the facts originate from so urces other than the client, as long as the lawyer believes his suggestions are not false or misleading. \u8220\'3fA lawyer who did not prepare his or her witne ss for testimony, having had an opportunity to do so, would not be doing his or her professional job properly.\u8221\'3f Dist. Colum. Bar, Limitations on a Lawy er\rquote s Participation in the Preparation of a Witness\rquote Testimony, Op. 79, Comm. Legal Ethics, Legal Times of Wash., December 24, 1979, at 27-28. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A different rule applies where the attorney functions as a counsellor (in contra st to functioning as an advocate), to bring about actions desired by clients. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1972108450&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Sarantos, 455 F.2d 877 (2d Cir. 1972) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the attorney counselled how to create an affidavit intended to procure immigra tion visas. Women, paid to marry aliens, falsely swore that they lived together with applicants for such visas. The attorney was convicted of aiding and abettin g the filing of false statements because of his indifference to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 truth } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 of the assertions. The Court stated: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 We have not held . . . that an attorney must investigate \lquote the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 truth } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 of his client\rquote s assertions\rquote or risk going to jail. We have held, and continue to hold, that he cannot counsel others to } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_129_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_129_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *129 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 make statements in the face of obvious indications of which he is aware that th ose assertions are not true. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1972108450&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 881 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A trial court in a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 case may not forbid a defendant, during a lengthy recess, to discuss his testim ony with his attorney; an order to that effect violates the Sixth Amendment\rquo te s guarantee of right to counsel and requires that a conviction of guilt be di smissed. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976142345&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 (1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (overnight recess during testimony); }

{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986143128&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Mudd v. United States, 798 F.2d 1509 (D.C. Cir. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (weekend recess after direct testimony concluded and before cross examination; instruction to counsel not to discuss testimony, but explicitly permitting consu ltation about anything else). } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980100268&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Potashnick v. Port City Constr. Co., 609 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980224004&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 449 U.S. 820 (1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , ruled to the same effect in a civil case; the principal of the defendant may n ot be prevented during the course of several days\rquote testimony from consult ing with the counsel of his company. In all these cases, the need of a client to consult his attorney outweighs the concern about possible coaching. The ability of the prosecutor (or opposing counsel in a civil case) to cross examine about the amount of coaching received is considered to be sufficient protection. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976142345&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_80" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Geders, 425 U.S. at 80; }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986143128&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1509" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Mudd, 798 F.2d at 1509. }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Presumably, this suggestion refers to questions whether certain subjects covere d in direct were discussed during the recess; one doubts that the Supreme Court or the court of appeals intended to allow substantial inquiry into the contents of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney

} } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 conversations. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989007566&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the recess was a short one, 15 minutes between direct and cross-examination, a nd the South Carolina trial judge instructed the defendant-witness not to consul t with counsel during the recess. Defendant\rquote s conviction was affirmed. Th e Supreme Court held that \u8220\'3fwhen a defendant becomes a witness, he has n o constitutional right to consult with his lawyer while he is testifying.\u8221\ '3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989007566&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 281 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Once the defendant places himself at the very heart of the trial process, it onl y comports with basic fairness that the story presented on direct is measured fo r its accuracy and completeness by uninfluenced testimony on cross-examination. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1

{\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_130_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_130_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *130 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989007566&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 283 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (citation omitted). Geders, the Supreme Court held, involved an overnight reces s where presumptively other items about the trial might need to be discussed; he re the short recess could involve nothing other than the testimony. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 IV. Exceptions to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 -- Where the Client Owes a Fiduciary Obligation with Reference to the Advice. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1970102198&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied sub nom. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1971242029&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Garner v. First Amer. Life Ins. Co., 401 U.S. 974 (1971) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Corporation not entitled to claim } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 against stockholder suing derivatively and who shows cause that } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 should not be invoked. Court bases rule on existence of fiduciary relationship between directors and stockholders, and the social utility to give preference to this relationship over the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 relationship.) See Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Ind., Inc., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH ) 96,819 (N.D. Ga. 1979) (special counsel engaged pursuant to consent decree mad e at instance of SEC to investigate and report instances of alleged corporate wr ongdoing may not have his report withheld from stockholders). See generally } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1933122711&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_13" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13 (1933) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Cardozo). (\u8220\'3fBut the recognition of a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 [juror\rquote s } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ] does not mean that it is without conditions or exceptions. The social policy t hat will prevail in many situations may run foul in others of a different social policy, competing for supremacy. It is then the function of a court to mediate between them, assigning, so far as possible, a proper value to each, and summoni ng to its aid all the distinctions and analogies that are the tools of the judic ial process.\u8221\'3f) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975104980&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Valente v. Pepsico, Inc., 68 F.R.D. 361 (D. Del. 1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . (Fiduciary obligation owed to stockholders \u8220\'3fis stronger than the soci etal policy favoring } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communications,\u8221\'3f at least if no trade secrets are involved. In suit by stockholders of a subsidiary that was merged into the parent corporation, commu nications between the parent and its counsel are held subject to disclosure if t hey touch upon duties owed by the parent to fellow stockholders of the subsidiar y. Counsel for parent may also not assert } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 during period he was a director of subsidiary. These rules are not to apply if stockholders\rquote claim is made in bad faith or if it is in interest of \u822 0\'3fgreat majority of the beneficiaries\u8221\'3f to uphold the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 .) As to that, the court ruled: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_131_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_131_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *131 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 where a corporation seeks advice from legal counsel, and the information relate s to the subject of a later suit by a minority shareholder in the corporation, t he corporation is entitled to claim the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 as against its own share holder, absent some special cause. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975104980&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 367 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Garner and Valente tend to be followed. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978122872&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Transocean Tender Offer Sec. Litig., 455 F. Supp. 999 (N.D. Ill. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (minority share holders who accuse officers of acting against interests of mino

rity can discover items which otherwise would be covered by } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982134141&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild Local 35 v. The Washington Star Co., 543 F. Supp. 906 (D.D.C. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (holding, in a case under ERISA, that the client was not the fiduciary who admi nistered the plan, but the beneficiaries of the trust who were to benefit from t he plan, so that in a case by beneficiaries against the trustee, communications between the attorney and the trustee were held discoverable); Broad v. Rockwell Int\rquote l Corp., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) \u167\'3f 95,894 (N.D. Tex. 1977), r uled that if a colorable claim by those to whom defendants owed a fiduciary obli gation was asserted, otherwise } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents would have to be disclosed. Defendant\rquote s argument that a higher standard of relevance should be applied was rejected. See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1978121759&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Cohen v. Uniroyal, Inc., 80 F.R.D. 480 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (E.D. Pa. 1978); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981142837&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Int. Sys. & Controls Corp. Sec. Litig., 91 F.R.D. 552 (S.D. Tex. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , vacated, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982152613&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 693 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1972103599&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Bailey v. Meister Brau, Inc., 55 F.R.D. 211 (N.D. Ill. 1972) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; Burghart v. Landau, No. 82 Civ. 2181, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 1985); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983135186&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Quintel Corp, N.V. v. Citibank, 567 F. Supp. 1357 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Judge Will, in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978121774&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 80 F.R.D. 718 (N.D. Ill. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 repeated standards of \u8220\'3fgood cause\u8221\'3f stated by the court in Gar ner. Judge Will found, from the allegations of the complaint, that there were ma ny stockholders who were interested in knowing what was communicated between cor porate officers and directors and corporate counsel, and since the possible rele vance was significant, \u8220\'3fgood cause\u8221\'3f was shown. Thus, \u8220\'3 fgood cause\u8221\'3f was not a rigorous requirement and, in fact, a large volum e of documents was required to be produced. But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1981113746&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re LTV Sec. Litig., 89 F.R.D. 595 (N.D. Tex. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (rejecting shareholders\rquote claim of statutory and common law right to insp ect } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_132_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_132_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *132 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communications and sustaining assertion of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 on ground that \u8220\'3fgood cause\u8221\'3f was not established where only po st-event } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communications were sought, where the event-related facts could be obtained thr ough discovery, and where disclosure of the information sought -- counsel\rquote s remedial advice -- \u8220\'3fwould do great injury to the corporation\rquote

s interest in self-investigation and preparation for litigation\u8221\'3f). Cali fornia does not follow the rule of Garner; a corporation sued, and suing, deriva tively remains a client, and communications with its counsel remain protected, e ven against the stockholder-plaintiffs. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982136948&pubNum=226&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Dickerson v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. App. 3d 93 (1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . New York, however, follows Garner, at least to the extent of prescribing an ev aluation between \u8220\'3fbenefit\u8221\'3f and \u8220\'3finjury resulting from disclosure,\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983150068&pubNum=602&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_602_255" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Beard v. Ames, 96 A.D.2d 119, 121, 468 N.Y.S.2d 253, 255 (4th Dep\rquote t 1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , with the burden on the party asserting } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In In re Bairnco Corp. Sec. Lit., 90 Civ. 2297 (S.D.N.Y. March 15, 1993), the co urt joined the Fifth Circuit, see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988110418&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_786" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Ward v. Succession of Freeman, 854 F.2d 780, 786 (5th Cir. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and the Sixth Circuit, see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992102499&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_130" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fausek v. White, 965 F.2d 126, 130-1 (6th Cir. 1992) }}}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in rejecting the Ninth Circuit\rquote s limitation of Garner to derivative acti ons, see Weil v. Investment/Indicators, Research & Mgmt., 647 F.2d 19 (9th Cir. 1981), and applied the doctrine of Garner to a 10(b)-5 class action against Keen e Corporation (\u8220\'3fKeene\u8221\'3f), the wholly owned subsidiary of Bairnc o Corporation, and the C.E.O. of both corporations. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court further extended Garner to include not only shareholders who owned sto ck at the time the fraudulent communications were made, but also to those who su bsequently purchased the stock at an artificially high price. The case involved the request for documents detailing pending asbestos litigation, allegedly mater ially misrepresented by Keene in Bairnco\rquote s public disclosures, resulting in an artificially inflated stock price. Keene refused to produce 420 documents on the basis of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . After a further review of the documents, Keene produced all but 77 of the docu ments. The court then ordered that the documents be produced for in camera inspe ction. After the court ordered another 11 documents be produced, Keene filed a m otion for reconsideration. The court applied the \u8220\'3fgood cause\u8221\'3f standard of Garner and found that the plaintiffs had \u8220\'3fshown sufficient cause to abrogate the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 -

} {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 with respect to the eleven documents } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_133_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_133_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *133 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 within Keene\rquote s possession,\u8221\'3f and ordered the documents produced. Slip op. at 15. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Garner will not preserve the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 where the documents at issue have been partially disclosed. In Zirn v. VLI Corp ., No. 299, 1992 (Del. March 8, 1993), the Court ruled that partial disclosure b y defendant of information obtained from its patent counsel, detailing a \u8220\ '3fsignificant possibility\u8221\'3f that a petition for reconsideration of a pa tent reinstatement would fail, waived the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 as to the entirety of the information whether or not the shareholders can show

\u8220\'3fgood cause\u8221\'3f for disclosure. The Court stated that \u8220\'3f[ i]t would be manifestly unfair to permit selective utilization of these portions and at the same time assert the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to shield any inquiry into the totality of counsel\rquote s advice and its fact ual basis.\u8221\'3f Slip op. at 24. The Court found that plaintiff had neverthe less proven \u8220\'3fgood cause\u8221\'3f because a colorable claim was asserte d, the full advice given by counsel is needed to counter the partial disclosure and no alternative source is apparent. Thus, under Garner, plaintiff made the re quisite showing to require disclosure. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Citing a dictum in LTV that the plaintiff class \u8220\'3fis frozen when corpora te wrongdoing ends\u8221\'3f and that \u8220\'3fadverse interests\u8221\'3f ther eafter prevail, it has been argued that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client

} } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 should again be applicable against invasion by the derivative or class plaintif f. M. L. Walton and S. L. Meagher, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in Stockholder Actions, 6 The National Law Journal 15 (Oct. 10, 1983). The auth ors cite, in addition to LTV, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981106910&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Kaplan, 90 F.R.D. 21 (N.D. Ill. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982152613&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Int\rquote l Sys. & Controls Corp. Sec. Litig., 693 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 19 82) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was a derivative stockholders\rquote suit, alleging that officers and director s had engaged in, and refused to stop, questionable payments. Subsequent to the event, the audit committee of the company engaged accountants and outside lawyer s to investigate, incident to the SEC\rquote s Voluntary Disclosure Program, and the stockholder-plaintiffs sought discovery of the accounting firm\rquote s Spe cial Review papers. The district court granted most of the discovery, holding th at the special audit was undertaken by the corporation for the benefit of its sh areholders, who in a sense paid for the review and became joint clients, equally entitled to the special review material. The court of appeals reversed. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_134_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_134_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *134 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1970102198&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1093" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The joint attorney rule of Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d at 1093, }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 does not apply to \u8220\'3fwork product,\u8221\'3f for counsel, hired by manag ement, cannot also be counsel to those against whom he is defending. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The case was remanded to enable the district court to decide if \u8220\'3fundue hardship\u8221\'3f and \u8220\'3fsubstantial need\u8221\'3f could be shown by th e plaintiff stockholder. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCPR26&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988110418&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Ward v. Succession of Freeman, 854 F.2d 780 (5th Cir. 1988) }}}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989075611&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 490 U.S. 1065 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In an action by income beneficiaries to remove a trustee of a trust to hold and administer a majority of the voting stock of a business corporation, a showing o f \u8220\'3fgood cause\u8221\'3f sets } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 aside. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989086339&pubNum=578&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hoopes v. Carota, 74 N.Y.2d 716, 543 N.E.2d 73 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In another case, the alleged obligations of the attorney to the beneficiaries of pension plan, and the attorney\rquote s failure to notify the beneficiaries o f an alleged misappropriation of the plan\rquote s assets for the use and benefi t of the plan\rquote s trustees, were made the basis of lawsuit against the atto rney, under the mail fraud statute and under RICO as well. 6 Legal Time of Washi ngton at 1 (August 15, 1983). The lawyer\rquote s acceptance of fees from the al legedly wrongdoing trustees was said to make him a \u8220\'3fparticipant\u8221\' 3f in a \u8220\'3fpattern of racketeering activity,\u8221\'3f as those terms are used in the RICO statute. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982134141&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild Local 35 v. Washington Star Co., 543 F. Sup p. 906 (D.D.C. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The Secretary of Labor has standing in the right of the beneficiaries to invad e what otherwise would be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981128013&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Donovan v. Fitzsimmons, 90 F.R.D. 583 (N.D. Ill. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978121792&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Colocotronis Tanker Sec. Litig., 449 F. Supp. 828 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the lead lender was sued by participating banks, and discovery was sought of d ocuments recording conversations between the lead lender and its counsel. The pa rticipating banks argued that counsel was working for them also, and therefore t hey were entitled to discover the otherwise } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communications. Valente and Garner were cited for the proposition that the lead bank was a fiduciary for the participating banks and, therefore, that the parti cipating banks were entitled to the work product of the attorney to the same ext ent as the lead bank. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Held, participations do not create special fiduciary or trust relationships. The attorneys worked predominantly for the lead bank, and were historically its att orneys. The lead bank was } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_135_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_135_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *135

} } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 entitled to consult with its lawyers as to its own interests, and the participa ting banks had their own counsel. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The ability to function of a bank, an institution which by its nature occupies a central position in the financial lives of all those with whom it does business , would be seriously impaired if it could not depend on the confidentiality of i ts communications with its attorneys. . . . The harm of disclosure outweighs the benefit to the litigation. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978121792&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_834" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 449 F. Supp. at 834 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Cf. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1953120299&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , (illustrating how executive } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is balanced with specific needs for proofs); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974127252&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) }}}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (same). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 V. Exceptions to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 -- Clearing Name. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. Right to Divulge Confidential Information. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Attorney may clear name by divulging confidential information. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974110799&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Meyerhofer v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 497 F.2d 1190 (2d Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974205455&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 419 U.S. 998 (1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976142587&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Application of Friend, 411 F. Supp. 776 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (prior to indictment). In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977129643&pubNum=602&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1

.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 People v. Dolkart, 60 A.D.2d 238, 400 N.Y.S.2d 520 (1st Dep\rquote t 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the SEC and district attorney co-opted an attorney who stole $2.5 million of f ees paid by client to attorney\rquote s law firm and another $500 thousand from client, to obtain assistance of attorney in SEC\rquote s investigation of client . } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In exchange for cooperation, attorney received a sentence which did not include imprisonment. Dolkart\rquote s client became the respondent in an enforcement ac tion brought by the SEC, to enjoin violations of the securities laws. A defense was raised that obtaining } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information in the way mentioned above constituted misconduct sufficient to vit iate the action. The district court allowed depositions of the Director of Enfor cement, and of the co-opted lawyer, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980147652&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 SEC v. Gulf & Western Ind., Inc., 502 F. Supp. 343 (D.D.C. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and, after discovery, struck the defense. The court ruled that the attorney was also a director of Gulf & Western, and \u8220\'3farguably received\u8221\'3f th e information claimed to be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , not as a lawyer, but as a director, a \u8220\'3fservicer\u8221\'3f and a busin ess advisor. The client had the burden to } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_136_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_136_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *136 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 prove that } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 applied and, in the absence of proof that the information was gained in a capac ity as lawyer and not as director, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 did not apply. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981132399&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 SEC v. Gulf & Western Ind., Inc., 518 F. Supp. 675 (D.D.C. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \u8220\'3fBecause of Dolkart\rquote s many roles and the large amount of time he spent at Gulf & Western\rquote s offices, it cannot be assumed that all of hi s discussions with corporate officials involved legal advice.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981132399&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 683 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The decision seems forced. A lawyer who is also a director continues to act as a lawyer if he is asked, and gives, legal advice during directors\rquote meeting s. Cf. Hirschfeld v. SEC, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) \u167\'3f 92,079 (D.D.C. June 20, 1985) (where former associate disclosed firm\rquote s wrongdoing to SEC, fir m lacked standing to complain of breaches of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 }

{\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , since } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 belongs to client.) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Following an award of sanctions under Rule 11, defendant pressed for relief agai nst both the plaintiff and counsel for the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff proposed to submit correspondence between them in camera, in order to convince D istrict Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. that any sanction that may be awarded shoul d be awarded against plaintiff, and not against counsel. Judge Haight ruled, fol lowing the Advisory Committee Notes, that he could accept the documents in camer a without compromising the plaintiff\rquote s } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . International Business Counselors Inc. v. Bank of Ikeda, Ltd., No. 89 Civ. 837 3, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4112 (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 1991). See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991042970&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_708_930" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 58 3, 111 S. Ct. 922, 930 (1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (holding that \u8220\'3fany party who signs a document, whether or not the part y was required to do so,\u8221\'3f is subject to Rule 11). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Right Does Not Extend to Suing for a Class or for Gain. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Although an attorney may sue a former client even though his suit is based on co nfidential information learned in the context of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the suit may not be on behalf of a class. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983131744&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Doe v. A Corporation, 709 F.2d 1043 (5th Cir. 1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The conflict between the attorney\rquote s ethical obligations to maintain his former client\rquote s secrets (retaining benefits from life insurance where pr emiums had been contributed by the employee, allegedly in violation of the Emplo yee Retirement Income Security Act and the obligations of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_137_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_137_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *137 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 class representative to vindicate class interests disqualifies the attorney, bo th as counsel and as a class representative. Nor may the attorney communication with others actually or potentially in the class. But he may sue in his own righ t. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Third-Party Subpoenas \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The filing of a lawsuit by a client against his former counsel does not waive th e client\rquote s } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 as to third parties. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992036114&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Industrial Clearing House, Inc. v. Browning Mfg. Div., 953 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir. 1

992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The client, dissatisfied with his counsel\rquote s work in a lawsuit, changed attorneys and brought a separate suit against his former counsel for malpractice . The plaintiff in the original action then sought to subpoena information from the former counsel. The court ruled that the subpoena was improper on the ground s that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is only waived if confidential material is presented as a defense, not by the f iling of a malpractice suit. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 VI. Inapplicability of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 -- Fees, Non-Legal Advice; Extra-Legal Employments. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. Fee Arrangements and Miscellaneous Aspects of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

Relationship. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Inquiries about fee arrangements and if an } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 relationship exists are generally not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975109848&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_888" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Michaelson, 511 F.2d 882, 888 (9th Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975241949&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 421 U.S. 978 (1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975107594&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_367" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Grand Jury Investigation, 401 F. Supp. 361, 367-68 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (W.D. Pa. 1975) where Judge Snyder, quoting language of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Shientag of the New York Supreme Court and citing extensive precedents, ruled: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 [T]he employment of counsel should [not] be shrouded with secrecy. The retention of counsel was to call the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 into operation. The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 itself was to extend only to communications between a client and an attorney wh o had been retained. The name or identity of the client was not the confidence w hich the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

was designed to protect. . . . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 More recently, in the context of strong attacks by prosecutors on defense counse l, described below, the New York intermediate appellate court } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_138_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_138_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *138 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 held that attorneys may not be subpoenaed for information while indictments are pending, except where the prosecution demonstrates \u8220\'3fthat the informati on it seeks must be had . . . at this time.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989178783&pubNum=602&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena of Stewart, 156 A.D.2d 294, 548 N.Y.S.2d 679 (1st Dep\rquote t 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976103231&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_588" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Gannet v. First Nat\rquote l State Bank, 410 F. Supp. 585, 588 (D.N.J.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977195741&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 546 F.2d 1072 (3d Cir. 1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, 431 U.S. 594 (1977), the client had his lawyer pay a tax deficie ncy. The lawyer refused to divulge who was his client. The district court requir ed disclosure, holding that \u8220\'3fthe } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege

} } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 does not embrace the client\rquote s identity.\u8221\'3f See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980137824&pubNum=605&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Matter of Priest v. Hennessy, 51 N.Y.2d 62 (1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The amount of fees and a general description (e.g., tax advice, litigation) of s ervices rendered are not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , but specific descriptions of such services are } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975108811&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Osborn, 409 F. Supp. 406 (D. Or. 1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d in part, rev\rquote d in part and vacated in part, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977123693&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 561 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; See

} {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982155991&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Witness (Salas v. United States), 695 F.2d 359 (9th Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (case remanded for hearing to permit proof that lawyer\rquote s correspondence and time records revealed client\rquote s motivation for creating the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 relationship, the nature of the legal services provided and possible litigation strategy, and not simply amounts of fees and general categories of service). Th e identity of a third party paying a defense lawyer\rquote s fees is not within the scope of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988031011&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (Wine), 841 F.2d 230 (8th Cir. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Counsel-generated materials arising out of client\rquote s request for politic al rather than legal advice are not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991076594&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Republican Party of North Carolina v. Martin, 136 F.R.D. 421 (E.D.N.C. 1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A grand jury subpoena issued to an attorney for records of financial transaction s with his clients must be narrowly drawn. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A request for \u8220\'3f[a]ny records ... relating to any thing of value,\u8221\ '3f \u8220\'3f[a]ny record ... reflecting ... any funds ... in trust accounts\u8 221\'3f\rquote and \u8220\'3fall records ... to financial transactions\u8221\'3 f was found to be overbroad. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992172926&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1317" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Horn), 976 F.2d 1314, 1317 (9th Cir. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The Ninth Circuit found that the discovery request was phrased in such broad t erms that the government was necessarily aware that it implicated } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged

} } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents. The overbreadth of the subpoena was not cured by a disclaimer espous ing } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_139_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_139_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *139 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 the lack of intent of the government to discover } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 material. Finally, the court ruled that descriptions of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents are not required in response to grand jury subpoenas. Rather, the pro per course is for in camera review by the court. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 May Exist Where Circumstances are Exceptional. The court, in In re: } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992055118&pubNum=162&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Criminal

} } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Investigation Nod. 72, 1/242Q, 326 Md. 1, 602 A.2d 1220 (Md. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , described several exceptions to the general rule of disclosure: (1) the \u8220 \'3flegal advice\u8221\'3f exception, in order that the client is not implicated in the very matter for which he sought advice. See, e.g., } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1960113360&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Baird v. Koerner, 279 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1960) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (IRS not permitted to learn identities of delinquent taxpayers where that would have constituted an acknowledgment of clients\rquote guilt); (2) the \u8220\'3 flast link\u8221\'3f exception, where the client\rquote s identity is the last l ink in a chain of incriminating evidence leading to indictment; this exception s eems to have been rejected by four federal circuits; and (3) the \u8220\'3fcommu nication\u8221\'3f exception, where disclosure would reveal confidential profess ional communications. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984142890&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Liebman, 742 F.2d 807 (3d Cir. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (all clients to whom the attorney gave advice as to the deductibility of certai n fees). The court found that the above exceptions did not apply to the present case and ordered disclosure of the fee arrangement from a prior representation o f a defendant in a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 drug case in a pending tax fraud investigation. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975111190&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Jones, 517 F.2d 666 (5th Cir. 1975)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Order requiring lawyers to testify as to identities of clients who retained an d paid them to represent indicted defendants -- held, reversed. \u8220\'3fUnder certain circumstances, an attorney must conceal even the identity of a client. . .\u8221\'3f, as, for example, where substance of communications is known but id entity of communicator is not known); In re Grand Jury Subpoena of } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975106883&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_524" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Stolar, 397 F. Supp. 520, 524 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Lawyer not required to divulge client\rquote s address and telephone number be cause of special circumstances presented. \u8220\'3f[O]ther methods of obtaining the information sought must be found short of converting an attorney into an un willing information\u8221\'3f); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980145838&pubNum=162&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Brennan v. Brennan, 422 A.2d 510 (1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980137892&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Investigation (N. Tinari), 631 F.2d 17 (3d Cir. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied sub nom. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981207078&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Tinari v. United States, 449 U.S. 1083 (1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (except if details of fee arrangement would implicate client in very } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 activity for which } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_140_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_140_1}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *140 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 advice was sought). In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982155991&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Witness (Sales), 695 F.2d 359 (9th Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , it was held that although an attorney must disclose the identity of, and fees paid by, his client, communications which would reveal the client\rquote s motiv ation in seeking legal advice or the nature of the services provided are protect ed by } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and need not be disclosed. The Court of Appeals remanded to enable a particular ized showing to be made; In re: } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989095873&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Sealed Case, 877 F.2d 976 (D.C. Cir. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ( } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 may extend to fact of retention of counsel and fact that advice given, where pr osecutor sought to prove that adjustments to books and records were made, not in normal course, but because of counsel\rquote s advice made after government inv estigation had begun). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit suggested that the \u8220\'3flast lin k\u8221\'3f doctrine discussed above, that is, where the identity of the party p aying the fees is the last link in }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 proof, should not necessarily be determinative, as to whether or not the identi ty of the third party benefactor is within the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The important question is whether or not at the time the third party, when he paid the fees, was the client of the attorney. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990135388&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Subpoena for Attorney for Reyes-Reguena (DeGeurin), 913 F.2d 11 18 (5th Cir. 1990) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991049665&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1

.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (DeGeurin) 926 F.2d 1423 (5th Cir. 1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . After a holding that the attorney was required to disclose his third party ben efactor, on remand to the district court, the third party benefactor intervened (apparently, anonymously), and made a showing that the identity of the third par ty was inextricably intertwined with confidential communications that were prote cted by the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court, after evaluating the interest of the prosecution to obtain useful i nformation on possible } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 activity, and the interests protected by the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

, ruled in favor of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court held that protecting the identity was done, not because of concerns about incrimination, but because the government should not be allowed to obtain disclosure of confidential communications given to seek legal advice. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 An attorney cannot be required to produce in response to a grand jury subpoena r equiring records, even public records, relating to his client or any company own ed operated or controlled by his company except those that refer to the client o n their face. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_141_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_141_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *141 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980125524&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Proceedings Gary Katz (Jamil v. United States), 623 F.2d 122 (2 d Cir. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Otherwise, the subpoena calls for a testimonial communication and violates the } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . If the client himself were subpoenaed, the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 against self-incrimination would apply. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976142358&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980195022&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Praetorius, 622 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied sub nom. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980224475&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Lebel v. United States, 449 U.S. 860 (1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A tape recording, initially intended for others, but given to counsel and used b y counsel for the purpose of framinglegal advice, is held to have been \u8220\'3 fmade in the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 relationship,\u8221\'3f and is therefore protected by the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The attorney is not required to produce it in response to a subpoena by a gran d jury, since the client had the right to claim his Fifth Amendment } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 with regard to that tape, and since the tape is also covered by the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982139892&pubNum=605&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Investigation (Vanderbilt), 57 N.Y.2d 66 (1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , citing } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976142358&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_396" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 396-401 (1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The dissenting opinion argued that the attorney did not give advice with regar d to the information provided in the tape and, therefore, the tape was not prote cted by the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 . \par \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A clip of bullets can also qualify as an artifact involved in the giving of lega l advice, and can be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982116574&pubNum=551&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_551_352" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 People v. Investigation into a Certain Weapon, 113 Misc. 2d 348, 352 (Sup. Ct. K ings Co. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 had to give way, however, to a stronger social policy, that of not permitting a nyone to secrete the instrumentalities of a crime, for } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3fotherwise instrumentalities and fruits of crime would be beyond the re ach of the law by the mere fact that a defendant turned them over to an attorney .\u8221\'3f The court ruled, also, that } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 had been waived by the presence of another with whom defendant lived as husband and wife, but who had not been married to him. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 An attorney may be required to disclose if he told his client on what date the c

lient was required to surrender himself and begin his prison sentence, but only in response to a specifically pointed question, and not to a question seeking ge nerally to elicit his conversations with his client. In re Grand Jury Subpoena ( Bierman v. United States), No. 84-5344, slip op. (11th Cir. May 13, 1986) (en ba nc). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_142_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_142_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *142 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A law firm, under investigation for tax fraud, was required to produce, directl y or through a custodian which it could select, records relating to its fee arra ngements with, and disbursements on behalf of, the firm\rquote s clients includi ng, among other things, canceled checks in favor of clients, correspondence with clients relating to recoveries, and like items. In Re Two Grand Jury Subpoenae Duces Tecum Dated August 21, 1985, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986130378&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Doe, 793 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The Court of Appeals held that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 does not protect information about awards to client or fee arrangements, except when they involve prejudicial disclosure of confidential communications, and th at documents relating to identities of clients and concerning fees are not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Furthermore, some aspects of the records were \u8220\'3frequired records\u8221 \'3f and subject to production on that account as well. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Client\rquote s Demeanor Not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . A client\rquote s demeanor of cooperativeness or awareness is not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Thus, in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1964114009&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_114" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Kendrick, 331 F.2d 110, 114 (4th Cir. 1964) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , an attorney was permitted to give such testimony in a hearing related to defen dant\rquote s competence to stand trial. The court ruled that non-confidential m atters of appearance are not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3feven though the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 relation provided the occasion for the lawyer\rquote s observation of them.\u82 21\'3f See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979112154&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_774" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Darrow v. Gunn, 594 F.2d 767, 774 (9th Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert.denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979230614&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 444 U.S. 849 (1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (attorney\rquote s observations of demeanor may be disclosed, but not if based on confidential communications). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Policy Forbidding Prosecutor to Co-Opt Investigative Work of Defense Counsel. There is or, at least, there used to be, a strong attitude forbidding the gover nment to co-opt the investigative work of an attorney, at least without a showin g of compelling or particularized need arising from an absence of other sources for the information. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977126529&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

Grand Jury Subpoena, 438 F. Supp. 1176 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (inquiry into \u8220\'3flost\u8221\'3f records requested by subpoena); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1966105453&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_686" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Terkeltoub, 256 F. Supp. 683, 686 (S.D.N.Y. 1966) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Private counsel, if deputized by a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 investigation public agency, and if working closely with such agency, is covere d by the law-enforcement } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , and documents created by such counsel cannot be subpoenaed under } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCRPR17&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7a b161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType= DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In re Dept. of Investigation, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_143_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_143_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *143 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988113814&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Myerson, 856 F.2d 481 (2d Cir. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (2-1 decision). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. Testimony of Counsel. The testimony of private counsel may be admissible. Thu s, \u8220\'3fbenefactor payments\u8221\'3f, fees paid by one defendant in behalf of another, were held suggestive of the existence of an association in fact, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985124437&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_1160" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Castellano, 610 F. Supp. 1151, 1160 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . And there are circumstances where the use of a common attorney or accountant i n a distant city could be relevant to establishing conspiracy. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979114222&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_147" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 147 (2d Cir. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980235203&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 446 U.S. 907 (1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Subpoenas to Counsel and Changing Policies and Statutes Regarding Forfeitures . \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 How are these sometimes contradictory policies resolved in the context of a gran d jury subpoena when the courts are interested in avoiding minihearings regardin g the enforceability of such subpoens, and other important policies of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 law are implicated? \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Prior to 1985, courts seemed to be wary of such subpoenas to attorneys. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1973126318&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982118990&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_814" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 814 (D.C. Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . An affidavit by the United States Attorney was the recommended procedure in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982120779&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1011" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Special Grand Jury No. 81-1 (Leon D. Harvey), 676 F.2d 1005, 1011 (4th Cir .) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , vacated as moot, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983104331&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 697 F.2d 112 (4th Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 .

\par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In balancing the public interest in providing the grand jury with the informatio n it may need against the private interest of maintaining a confidential and imp ortant professional relationship, it is not enough that the subpoena be shown to be regular. When a grand jury subpoena undermines an ongoing } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 relationship, the United States Attorney should also show by affidavit an impor tant need for the information sought. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (I.e. the information is relevant and needed, the investigation is within the ge neral jury\rquote s jurisdiction, the information is not primarily for another p urpose.) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 However, attorneys may possess important, non} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information, for example, who, behind } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_144_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_144_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *144 }

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 the client, has been paying the lawyers\rquote fees. Should attorneys be fair game for grand jury subpoenas, or are there other policies that have to be consi dered, in particular, constitutional requirements of right to counsel and fair t rial? Under guidelines established by the Department of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and by the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, 48 Antitrust & T rade Reg. Rep. (BNA) 761 (May 2, 1985), prior approval of the U.S. Attorney is s ufficient. The U.S. Attorney is to consider if reasonable attempts were made to obtain the information from alternative sources, if there were negotiations with the attorney by which the needs of the government and the particular problems o f the subpoenaed party were discussed, what necessity the information had in rel ation to a successful investigation or prosecution of a crime (or a successful c ompletion of a civil litigation), and the subpoena was to be limited in scope an d time to avoid the need to produce a large volume of material. \u8220\'3fPeriph eral, nonessential, or speculative information\u8221\'3f is not to be sought. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A state disciplinary rule was passed in Pennsylvania, requiring federal prosecut ors to obtain judicial approval before subpoenaing any lawyer to give evidence a bout his or her client to a grand jury. The district court ruled, however, that the ethical rule could not become part of the district\rquote s local rules, for the ethical rule offended federal law governing grand juries and subpoena pract ice. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991089653&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Baylson v. Disciplinary Bd. of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 764 F. Supp 328 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (E.D. Pa. 1991). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. The Second Circuit. The Second Circuit now seems to hold that in the absence of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , \u8220\'3fparticular need\u8221\'3f will generally not be required as a precon dition to subpoenas to counsel. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon John Doe, Esq. (Slotnick) ( } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986102135&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Roe (Colombo) v. United States, 781 F.2d 238 (2d Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (en banc), cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986218501&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 475 U.S. 1108 (1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The Second Circuit case arose in the context of an investigation of the Colomb o crime family. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Colombo\rquote s lawyer of some 18 years was served with a grand jury subpoena s eeking fee information with regard to 21 individuals and, more specifically, whe ther the lawyer received benefactor-payments to represent Colombo\rquote s crew. The information was considered relevant to a possible RICO violation. The issue was whether the government had to obtain prior judicial approval to issue such a subpoena to an attorney, that is, whether the government had to show need and } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_145_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_145_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *145 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 inability to obtain relevant information from other sources. The court of appea ls earlier decision of one of its panels, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985117483&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 759 F.2d 968, }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 held, en banc, that the government did not have to show need or obtain prior ju dicial approval. The court reasoned that information about fees and the identity of those who pay fees are not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984139886&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_62" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum served upon Shargel, 742 F.2d 61, 62 (2d C ir. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , and that Sixth Amendment constitutional rights do not attach at the grand jury stage, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982115469&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_17" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Vasquez, 675 F.2d 16, 17 (2d Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (per curiam). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Colombo was indicated during the course of the subpoena proceedings, but not und er RICO, and the issue was whether the judicial proceedings, thus instituted, ca lled for different rulings. The court of appeals held \u8220\'3fno.\u8221\'3f Tr ial was not imminent, and thus his preparations would not be unduly burdened. Al though the required testimony of Colombo\rquote s lawyer might disqualify him, t he Sixth Amendment did not guarantee particular counsel to an accused, at least in the circumstances of the case. Accord } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985154593&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Matter of Klein, 776 F.2d 628 (7th Cir. 1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; In re Grand Jury Proceeding: } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983156147&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Schofield v. United States, 721 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983128514&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Freeman, 708 F.2d 1571 (11th Cir. 1983)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Dissenting, Judge Cardamone (with Chief Judge Feinberg) argued that the governme nt was bringing about an arbitrary disqualification of counsel of choice, and th at violated the Sixth Amendment. No good reason was evident for postponing an in dictment of Colombo on the RICO count and, therefore, the pretext allowing conti nuing grand jury investigation of information relevant to that count could not j ustify the incursion on Sixth Amendment rights. The procedure followed by the go vernment threatened to \u8220\'3fsubvert some of the most vital concerns that th e } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 aims to safeguard,\u8221\'3f and \u8220\'3fgives the government unilaterally th e power to destroy that relationship.\u8221\'3f Id. at 7021. The dissenting judg es noted a survey conducted by Professor William J. Genego which reported that s ervice on defense counsel had become a practice \u8220\'3fto discourage zealous advocacy on behalf of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 defendants . . . by the most experienced and most successful

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 defense lawyers . . . .\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The practice noted by the cases above seems to arise from, and implement, recent attitudes about enterprise culpability under RICO, and the 1984 forfeiture prov isions added to RICO which } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_146_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_146_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *146 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 provide that the fruits of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 conduct are forfeit to the government as of the time of the wrongs, whether tho se fruits are in the possession of the wrongdoers or of those having or coming i nto knowledge of the wrongdoing, that is, the defense lawyers. A lawyer worried about his fee, or offered a plea that will not endanger his fee, cannot be sangu ine about the independence of his efforts. Nor can the Department of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 credibly deny that its war against crime is based in part on reducing the effec tiveness of defense counsel. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. The First Circuit. The First Circuit has a contrary approach to the values be ing urged by defense counsel. }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984161170&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Re Grand Jury Matters, 751 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , such a subpoena was quashed. The court of appeals, in a careful decision, refu sed to rule that such communications were } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , and stressed that, generally, the grand jury\rquote s right to evidence should not be interfered with. However, as a matter of discretion, the district court could rightfully delay the return date of the subpoena in order to avoid unneces sary burden at a time counsel was preparing for trial and in order to avoid the appearance of a \u8220\'3fveiled threat.\u8221\'3f The court of appeals observed that the defense counsels themselves were not targets of the grand jury investi gation. Consistently with the view of the First Circuit, The Massachusetts Supre me Judicial Court adopted a disciplinary rule making it unprofessional conduct f or prosecutors to serve grand jury subpoenas on lawyers without prior judicial a pproval, and other states may be following that approach. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986139085&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 639 F. Supp. 117. }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The ethical pronouncement was held not to conflict with the Constitution\rquote s supremacy clause, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986139085&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Klubock, 639 F. Supp. 117 (D. Mass.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987134874&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 832 F.2d 649 (1st Cir. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (serving a subpoena in such circumstances \u8220\'3fwill immediately drive a ch illing wedge between the attorney/witness and his client\u8221\'3f by underminin

g the client\rquote s trust in his attorney and by intimidating counsel himself\ u8221\'3f). But challenges by United States Attorneys are continuing. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The D.C. Bar had proposed a rule making it unethical for a prosecutor to subpoen a a lawyer to appear before a Grand Jury to provide evidence about a current or past client of the lawyer. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Department officials opposed the rule\rquote s adoption and the proposed rule w as withdrawn. Proposed Rule 3.8(j), Proposed Rules of Professional Conduct and } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_147_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_147_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *147 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Related Comments, No. M-165-88D (D.C. Cir. Sept. 1, 1988). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Fee Source Inquiries. Inquiries about sources of fees and threats of forfeitu res may not serve as pretexts for discovering pretrial preparation or to seek in formation on which to base a possible superseding indictment or a claim for forf eiture. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985133727&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Payden v. United States, 767 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A grand jury subpoena to counsel seeking such information was quashed as an abu se of the grand jury process. Payden\rquote s legal expenses could not be taxed against the government, however, since the government, from at least the time of Blackstone, has been immune from costs by reason of its sovereignty. The statut ory exception, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=28USCAS2412&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cb lt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_8b3b0000958a4" } {\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 28 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 2412(a) }}}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , applies only to civil actions. In re Grand Jury Subpoena D.T. Dated Jan. 2, 19 85 (Robert M. Simels, Esq.); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985152184&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Payden v. United States, 775 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986142252&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Investigation, 640 F. Supp. 1047 (S.D.W. Va. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (holding that client who engaged lawyer to obtain bail release of another clien t was acting for a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 organization in furtherance of a crime or tort; identification testimony, there fore, was required). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. IRS Subpoenas Regarding Cash Payments. The Internal Revenue Code, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=26USCAS6050&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7 ab161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType =DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 26 U.S.C. 6050 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (I), } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=26USCAS7201&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7 ab161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType =DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 7201 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 requires identification of cash transactions exceeding $10,000. IRS \u8220\'3f8 300 Forms\u8221\'3f require identification of the source, including, in the case

of attorneys, the identification of clients. Routinely, defense counsel complet ed and filed such form without identifying clients. Their position was that disc losure, even of identity, would compromise } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and Sixth Amendment rights of independence of counsel. The propriety of the pra ctice was upheld by the Second Circuit in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991107215&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Goldberger & Dubin, P.C., 935 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court summarily dismissed appellant\rquote s constitutional claims under t he Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and then rejected appellant\rquote s clai m that section 6050-I conflicts with the doctrine of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . . . . The court listed the general principles of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege }

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3fThe doctrine protects only those disclosures that are necessary to o btain informed legal advice and that would not be made without the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ;\u8221\'3f the strict construal of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in the face of strong public policy; advice given in connection with a fraud is not protected; and \u8220\'3fthe } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 against disclosure belongs to the client, not the attorney\u8221\'3f) and concl uded that application of these } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_148_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_148_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *148 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 principles to the instant facts shows no evidence that identifications of subst antial cash fee payments is a disclosure of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information. The issue has attracted wide concern. See, e.g., Report, Committee on }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Advocacy, Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Issuance of Subpoenas Upon Lawyers in } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Cases by State and Federal Prosecutors: A Call for Immediate Remedial Action (1 985) and Forfeiture of Attorney Fees in } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Cases: a Call for Immediate Remedial Action, 41 The Record of the Association o f the Bar of the City of New York 469 (1986), warning that the use of subpoenas to defense counsel threatens the integrity of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 system and the ability of many defendants to obtain representation, and recomme nding that there be preconditions to subpoenas, including a requirement that pro secutors exhaust non-intrusive sources of information and exercise caution not t o compromise the confidentiality of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney

} } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 relationship. See U.S. Attorney Manual, Section 9-2.161, Attorney Subpoena Guid elines (Prentice Hall, 1989-2 Supp.) (requiring that subpoenas focus on informat ion relevant to specific } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 investigations and exhaust alternative sources, and that a prosecutor evaluate benefits and needs). Defense counsel are concerned that such subpoenas require c ounsel to testify against their clients and become disqualified, thus giving the prosecutor intrusive power in plea negotiations and otherwise compromise indepe ndent and vigorous defense. That concern led to an amendment to Rule 3.8 (f) of the ABA Rules of Professional Conduct to elevate the provisions of the U.S. Atto rney Manual to a professional obligation for prosecutors. See Resolution, ABA Ho use of Delegates, Feb. 1990 (reported in ABA/BNA Lawyers\rquote Manual on Profe ssional Conduct 01:156 (1990). See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989178783&pubNum=602&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena of Stewart, 156 A.D.2d 294, 548 N.Y.S.2d 679 (1st Dep\rquote t 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (to avoid \u8220\'3finevitable \u8216\'3fchilling effect\u8221\'3f\u8217\'3f on } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 relationship, prosecutor must demonstrate \u8220\'3fthat the information it see ks must be had . . . at this time.\u8221\'3f) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 5. United States v. Gotti. The existence of a pattern of benefactor payments bec ame the grounds of disqualification of counsel of choice. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991135392&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Gotti, 771 F. Supp. 552 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the defense counsel chosen by the heads of an alleged crime family had been th e recipients of benefactor payments in 20 prior cases. According to taped conver sations between the lawyers and those head of family, the payments had been made in order to induce loyalty to the syndicate and its } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_149_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_149_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *149 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 leaders. The government moved, on the basis of those overheard conversations, t o disqualify the lawyers from representing the heads of family in an indictment which charged them with operating a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 enterprise in violation of RICO and other statutes. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The government\rquote s motion was granted. The court found actual and serious p otential conflicts, for the lawyers could reasonably expect to be called as witn esses to prove that they had been representing the enterprise as well as their p articular clients. The lawyers could also, by their trial tactics in cross-exami nations and summations, give unsworn testimony relevant to the charges. \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court relied on } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988066949&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Wheat, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and held that this showing overcame the presumption in favor of defendants\rquo te counsel of choice. Under Wheat, the Sixth Amendment guaranteed \u8220\'3fan effective advocate,\u8221\'3f and not \u8220\'3fthe lawyer whom [the defendant] prefers.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988066949&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_159" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 486 U.S. at 159, }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 for the government was also entitled to a fair trial. See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985124437&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Castellano, 610 F. Supp. 1151 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court ruled: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3fthe conflict of interest and other grounds for disqualification are, i n my view so egregious that waivers cannot be accepted without seriously and adv ersely affecting the independent interest of the federal courts in ensuring that \lquote } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 trials are conducted within the ethical standards of the profession and that le

gal proceedings appear fair to all who observe them.\u8221\'3f (slip op. at 33) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 6. Forfeitures and Implications with Regard to Fees and Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel. The Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 provides broad forfeiture pro visions for racketeering (RICO) and continuing } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 enterprise (CCE) offenses. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=21USCAS853&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7a b161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType= DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 21 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 853 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; see also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=18USCAS1963&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7 ab161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType =DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 18 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 1963 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (RICO). Various provisions of State laws are to the same effect. See, e.g. N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. Art. 13-A. These enable federal and state authorities to att ach a defendant\rquote s assets: those said to constitute the proceeds of the cr ime or sometimes, as in the case of the New York statute, the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_150_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_150_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *150 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 equivalent. The effect is to compromise the ability of a defendant to pay a leg al fee and, in the case of the federal statutes, the ability of counsel to be se cure in the receipt of a fee. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Department Guidelines On Forfeitures of Attorneys\rquote Fees approve the use of forfeiture proceedings to seek forfeiture of legal fees paid to attorneys, if the government proves that the fee in fact was paid from assets that are forfei table. (Dep\rquote t of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Forfeiture Guidelines \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 9-111.000 - 9-111.700) An attorney is entitled to keep the assets only if he can prove at a post-forfeiture proceeding that he was a bona fide purchaser and was reasonably without cause to know the asset was subject to forfeiture. Id. at \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 9-111.220. The burden is rather difficult in light of the notice to defense counsel inherent in the v ery representation, and the requirement that the assets subject to forfeiture be specified in the indictment. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCRPR7&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 7(c)(2) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The United States Supreme Court held, in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989093291&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989094184&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Caplin & Drysdale v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , that these broad forfeiture provisions are to be literally interpreted; Congre ss intended no exception to enable private counsel to be engaged and paid with f unds which, because they result from } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 enterprises, are subject to forfeiture under the statute. In Monsanto, the gove rnment, upon the unsealing of an indictment alleging a large scale heroin distri bution and other crimes, obtained an ex parte restraint of defendant\rquote s ho me, apartment and $35,000 cash, the alleged fruits of his crimes. Defendant move d to free sufficient funds to enable him to engage counsel of his choice, arguin g that because of the length and complexity of a multiparty RICO case, he could not have an adequate defense by appointed counsel paid at CJA rates, and that pr ivate counsel would not consent to an engagement if the fees paid to him could b e forfeit in a post-conviction proceeding. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 To retain such funds, counsel had to be a \u8220\'3fbona fide purchaser\u8221\'3 f, without notice that the fees paid to him were the fruits of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 activities. In light of wideranging allegations of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 enterprises that are characteristic of RICO indictments, it would be hard for c ounsel not to have notice, especially since the test is applied following a conv iction. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Monsanto, the Supreme Court reviewed the Forfeiture statute. Its breadth was purposeful, the Supreme Court held, resulting from \u8220\'3fcongressional frust ration with the diversion of large amounts of forfeitable assets to pay } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_151_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_151_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *151 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 attorney\rquote s fees.\u8221\'3f 491 U.S., n. 8. The Supreme Court noted that the House Report commented that the bill was not intended to interfere with Sixt

h Amendment rights to counsel, nor to resolve conflicting district court opinion s on the scope of permissible restraint, but the breadth of the literal wording of the statute was held to control. Nor did the Court give effect to the post-en actment comments of various other congressmen. And the district courts, in grant ing motions for restraints of transfers of property, lacks discretion to evaluat e competing hardships pursuant to doctrines of equity whether a deduction for at torney\rquote s fees might be appropriate; \lquote \u8220\'3finterpretative cano n[s are] not a license for the judiciary to rewrite language enacted by the legi slature\u8221\'3f; Judge Ralph Winter\rquote s rulings to the contrary because o f Constitutional concerns was specifically rejected. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989093291&pubNum=471&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_471_524" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 105 L.Ed. 2d at 524 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Supreme Court, in Monsanto ruled that it did not have to decide whether a he aring was required before a pretrial restraint could be imposed and what scope t hat hearing should have. The district court had held such a hearing, and the gov ernment had satisfied \u8220\'3foverwhelmingly\u8221\'3f the burden of showing \ u8220\'3flikelihood that the assets are forfeitable\u8221\'3f, that is, that the government would likely succeed at trial and that the assets were the proceeds of crimes. Id. at 520. The defendant was unable to engage private counsel, and h e was thus defended by appointed counsel. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Upon remand of Monsanto, the Second Circuit, again en banc, vacated the decision of the panel which originally heard the appeal, reaffirmed that a pretrial hear ing was required, and held that the hearing was to be governed by a \u8220\'3fpr obable cause\u8221\'3f standard as to both guilt and the forfeitability of the s pecified assets notwithstanding that a grand jury had already made such findings . The Second Circuit thus aligned itself with six other circuits. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988128115&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_731" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Moya-Gomez, 860 F.2d 706, 731 (7th Cir. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied sub nom., } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989097654&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Estevez v. United States, 492 U.S. 908 (1989)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987029151&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_928" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Harvey, 814 F.2d 905, 928 (4th Cir. 1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , superseded as to other issues. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988007366&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Forfeiture Hearing as to Caplin & Drysdale, 837 F.2d 637 (4th Cir. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (en banc), aff\rquote d, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989093290&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 491 U.S. 617 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986150222&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1466" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Thier, 801 F.2d 1463, 1466-70 (5th Cir. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (hearing required as a matter of statutory interpretation), modified, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987011070&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 809 F.2d 249 (5th Cir. 1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985159131&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1383" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Crozier, 777 F.2d 1376, 1383-84 (9th Cir. 1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ;

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_152_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_152_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *152 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985115074&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1324" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Lewis, 759 F.2d 1316, 1324-25 (8th Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&pubNum=780&cite=474US994&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&t ransitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 474 U.S. 994 (1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982129418&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_616" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Spilotro, 680 F.2d 612, 616-19 (9th Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981131345&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_915" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Long, 654 F.2d 911, 915-16 (3d Cir. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; see also United States v. Noriega, 745 F. Supp. 1541, 1545 & n. 2. But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989024967&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1354" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Bissell, 866 F.2d 1343, 1354 (11th Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1989140866&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 493 U.S. 849 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Analyzing the governing statutes, the Second Circuit ruled that the restraint of forfeitable assets could be accomplished ex parte, but a hearing had to follow. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Federal Rules of Evidence would not be applicable at such a hearing, and, as the Supreme Court held, the Sixth Amendment did not require that equities be we ighed on the issue of making funds available to retain counsel. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Prosecutors had opposed the requirement of a \u8220\'3fprobable cause\u8221\'3f hearing because of concerns about premature disclosure of the case and jeopardiz ing witnesses. The answer, ruled the majority, is not to seek a restraint. (Sinc e forfeitable assets relate back to the crime, and an indictment gives notice to counsel, the absence of restraint does not alleviate the concern that counsel o f choice may be hard to find.) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Caplin & Drysdale, the Supreme Court addressed the Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues, whether the Government may obtain forfeiture of property, even if the fo rfeiture prevents a defendant from engaging the attorney of his choice because i t takes away the defendant\rquote s funds and jeopardizes the payment already re ceived by the attorney. The case, like Monsanto, also involved allegations of co ntinuing } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 enterprise through a massive scheme of drug importation and distribution. The i ndictment alleged assets that were subject to forfeiture and, on the government\ rquote s motion, a restraining order had been imposed. Notwithstanding, defendan t paid his attorney $25,000 for pre-indictment services. Subsequently, defendant pleaded guilty, a forfeiture order was entered, and the attorney\rquote s petit ion to keep the funds paid to him, and which he had escrowed, was denied. The la wyer again petitioned to recover that sum, and for another $170,000 of the forfe ited funds as payment for legal services provided in the defense. The District C ourt granted the petition, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed beca

use of concern that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel would otherwise be infr inged. The Supreme Court reversed. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_153_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_153_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *153 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 White, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the forfeiture statute made the funds prop erty of the government upon the commission of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 act, and related the forfeiture, following conviction, back to that date. The c onveyance, the Supreme Court held, was \u8220\'3fvalid and effectual, against al l the world, as a recorded deed\u8221\'3f, 105 L.Ed. 2d at 542-43, and no \u8220 \'3fantiforfeiture exception... for the exercise of Sixth Amendment rights\u8221 \'3f should be recognized. Id. at 543. \u8220\'3f\rquote The modern day Jean Val jean must be satisfied with appointed counsel.\u8221\'3f\rquote Id. at 544-45. Nor is the Fifth Amendment implicated by concerns that the prosecutor might exch ange waivers of forfeiture for pleas; \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3fThe fact that the... Act might operate unconstitutionally under some c onceivable set of circumstances is insufficient to render it [the statute]... in valid.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 547 (citation omitted). \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Blackmun (with } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justices } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Brennan, Marshall and Stevens) dissented. The forfeiture statute, they stated, by \u8220\'3fbeggar[ing] those it prosecutes in order to disable their defense\u 8221\'3f, and punishing the defendant \u8220\'3fbefore he is proved guilty\u8221 \'3f, compromises \u8220\'3fthe integrity of our adversarial system of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 .\u8221\'3f Id. at 548, 551 n.8. The statute can be interpreted as granting disc retion to the courts in order to avoid an unconstitutional interference with Six th Amendment rights, for there is a \u8220\'3fdistinct role of the right to coun sel of choice in protecting the integrity of the judicial process\u8221\'3f and in equalizing resources in complex high-stake trials. Id. at 554-55. The right t o forfeiture gives the prosecutor \u8220\'3fan intolerable degree of power over any private attorney\u8221\'3f } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , especially one who may display particular talent or aggressiveness, Id. at 557 , and the statute should have been interpreted not to infringe on such rights. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A similar New York statute allows defendants to obtain a release of attached fun ds if they show \u8220\'3fhardship\u8221\'3f; \u8220\'3fhardship\u8221\'3f presu mably includes inability to pay a fee from non-attached funds. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986152473&pubNum=602&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Morgenthau v. Citisource, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 211, 508 N.Y.S.2d 152 (1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 These cases may have a severe effect on the ability of counsel to function indep endently. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_154_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_154_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *154 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Can counsel get to the bottom of things if knowledge may taint the retainer pai d to him? Can client or counsel retain independence if a guilty plea will produc e a willingness by the prosecutor to refrain from seeking forfeiture of fees? Th e forfeiture statutes are new, but the effects are foreboding. See generally, on this topic, the critical report of the Committee on } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Advocacy, The Forfeiture of Attorney Fees in } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Cases: A Call for Immediate Remedial Action, 41 The Record 469 (1986). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 7. Lawyers as Informants. In various prosecutions, the government has made lawye rs informants against their clients as a condition of accepting the lawyer\rquot e s plea of guilty or in exchange for promises of leniency. See Wall St. J., Sep . 11, 1991, p.8, col.3, reporting several such instances, and denial by United S tates District Judge Lynn N. Hughes to dismiss an indictment of Thomas and Phili p Noon because their lawyer and business partner was induced, in exchange for im munity from prosecution, to record conversations in which they developed a plan to defraud the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. The conversation occurre d four months after the agreement. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

VII. Inapplicability of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 -- Facts Learned by an Attorney From Sources Other Than the Client; Efforts to Establish Analogous } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. Counsel\rquote s Advice May Not Be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 if Factual Communications of Client Are Not Implicated. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976102535&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_520" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 70 F.R.D. 508, 520-23 (D. Conn.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Newman, D.J.), appeal dismissed, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976146265&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 534 F.2d 1031 (2d Cir. 1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . (As between a rule of

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 that protects only \u8220\'3fa fact communicated in confidence by the client to the attorney,\u8221\'3f and the broad rules favored by Wigmore (8 Wigmore, Evid ence \u167\'3f 2320 (3d ed. 1961)) and the Advisory Committee for the Proposed F ederal Rules of Evidence (Proposed Rule 503(b)) that would protect \u8220\'3f\rq uote any legal advice from attorney to client\u8221\'3f\rquote , the court adopt ed the stricter approach, for the risk of inhibiting clients does not exist if a n attorney is required to disclose communications \u8220\'3f\rquote demonstrably based on facts that did not come from the client in confidence.\u8221\'3f\rquot e Clients should not be insulated from statements of knowledge, independently a cquired, by attorneys). A rationale for a narrow approach may be a concern that a broader rule could insulate too much information. Corporations, by including g eneral counsel as an addressee of all memoranda discussing matters of sensitivit y, might be able to } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_155_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_155_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *155 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 prevent disclosure of such memoranda. Some corporations may do that simply to h ave a pretext to involve the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 as a way to defer disclosure and put the adversary to the chore of seeking ruli ngs. See Brazil, Views from the Front Lines: Observations by Chicago Lawyers Abo ut the System of Civil Discovery, Am. B. Found. Res. J. 217, 230 n.21 (1980). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Although the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 -

} {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 extends to a lawyer\rquote s advice as well as to the client\rquote s communica tions, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979115244&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1268" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Ramirez, 608 F.2d 1261, 1268 n.12 (9th Cir. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977122650&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_211" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Fischel, 557 F.2d 209, 211 (9th Cir. 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , protection is given because \u8220\'3f[o]rdinarily the compelled disclosure . . . will effectively reveal the substance of the client\rquote s confidential co mmunication to the attorney statements will not reveal the confidences of the cl ient. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982112579&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_261" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 536 F. Supp. at 261 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 An attorney\rquote s relationship with her clients is not a talisman for applyin

g the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to every conversation held within the confines of her office. The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is not \lquote draped around all occurrences and conversations which have any b earing, direct or indirect, upon the relationship of the attorney with his clien t.\rquote \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991076594&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Republican Party of North Carolina v. Martin, 136 F.R.D. 421 (E.D.N.C. 1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (strictly construing } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and holding that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 does not apply to legal advice which could not arguably reveal a client\rquote s confidence, i.e., memoranda which summarize case law without factual applicati on to the client, or cover letters which do not include facts which could reveal confidential client communications); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1968104759&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_693" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Natta v. Hogan, 392 F.2d 686, 693 (10th Cir. 1968) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3fthe recognition that } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 extends to statements of a lawyer to a client is necessary to prevent the use o f the lawyer\rquote s statement as admissions of the client\u8221\'3f); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1908101327&pubNum=348&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_348_256" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Rous, 159 F. 252, 256 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (E.D. Pa. 1908) (policy that client should feel safe to discuss matters with hi s attorney does not apply in a situation where the attorney becomes acquainted w ith facts from another source than his client\u8221\'3f); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1956110725&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_443" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

RCA v. Rauland Corp., 18 F.R.D. 440, 443-44 (N.D. Ill. 1955) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (quoting Wigmore: \u8220\'3f\rquote [the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ] has no concern with other persons\rquote freedom of mind, nor with the attorn ey\rquote s own desire for secrecy } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_156_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_156_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *156 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in his conduct of a client\rquote s case. It is therefore not sufficient for th e attorney, in invoking the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , to state that the information came somehow to him while acting for the client, nor that it came from some particular third person for the benefit of the clien t.\u8221\'3f\rquote ); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979140180&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Bonnell, 483 F. Supp. 1070 (D. Minn. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ( } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 does not apply to a document that only summarizes a meeting attended by third p arties). \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 New York State law differs; it protects the attorney\rquote s communications to the client without having to decide if those communications implicate disclosure s initially coming from the client. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1000059&cite=NYCPS4503&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 N.Y. CPLR 4503 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989084026&pubNum=578&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rossi v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Greater New York, 73 N.Y.2d 588, 592, 540 N.E.2d 703 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The New York Court of Appeals ruled to similar effect, following Rossi, in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991175026&pubNum=578&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Spectrum Systems International Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 371, 581 N.E.2d 1055 (1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (lawyer\rquote s report to client held } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 as legal advice even though it contained facts uncovered in investigation. \u82 20\'3f[W]hile information received from third persons may not itself be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , a lawyer\rquote s communication to its client that includes such information i n its legal analysis and advise may stand on different footing. The critical inq uiry is whether, viewing the lawyer\rquote s communication in its full content a nd context, it was made in order to render legal advice or services to the clien t.\u8221\'3f) Thus, there appears to be greater scope to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 under New York Law than under Federal Law. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Absent Work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , Facts Learned by Counsel from Independent Services or His Own Research Are Not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3f[T]he rule does not apply to the discovery of facts within the knowled ge of the attorney or counsel, which were not communicated or confided to him by his client, although he became acquainted with such facts while engaged in his professional duty as the attorney or counsel of his client.\u8221\'3f } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1844007080&pubNum=662&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_662_379" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Crosby v. Berger, 11 Paige, 377, 379 (N.Y. 1844) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975108811&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_411" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Osborn, 409 F. Supp. 406, 411 (D. Or. 1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d in part and rev\rquote d in part, vacated, in part, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977123693&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 561 F.2d 1334 (2d Cir. 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (lawyer\rquote s handwritten notes must be produced absent a showing that notes reflect a communication with lient, and need not be produced to the extent they reflect information coming from client). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_157_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_157_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *157 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1968113495&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_677" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Escott v. Barchris Constr. Corp., 283 F. Supp. 643, 677 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (attorneys examination of issuer\rquote s minutes and contracts and communicati on thereof to } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorneys } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 clients } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the underwriters, held a communication as to matters of fact, not legal advice ). See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981132399&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 SEC v. Gulf & Western Ind., Inc., 518 F. Supp. 675 (D.D.C. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (lawyer is a director; burden by proponent of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 not satisfied without showing that director\rquote s advice is clearly legal). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Information from Third Parties. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974104657&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1

.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_526" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 J. P. Foley & Co. v. Vanderbilt, 65 F.R.D. 523, 526-28 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (information learned by attorney from third persons and conveyed to client held \u8220\'3fnot based upon the confidential communications of the client\u8221\'3 f and not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . As to legal advice given to the client, the substance of the communications, a nd not the topics communicated, are } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Although the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 can be extended to \u8220\'3ffacts\u8221\'3f not within the knowledge of the cl ient until related by the attorney, care should be taken since so to hold \u8220 \'3fwould reduce the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to a sham\u8221\'3f and \u8220\'3fdisclosure of information obtained from third persons could be enveloped with the protection of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 merely by the ruse of having the attorney relate them to the client.\u8221\'3f) } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1968112792&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_889" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Giordani v. Hoffmann, 278 F. Supp. 886, 889 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (E.D. Pa. 1968); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1951120531&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_76" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Magida etc. v. Continental Can Co., 12 F.R.D. 74, 76-77 (S.D.N.Y. 1951) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (attorney may not immunize information learned from third persons by communicat ing it to his client as advice). See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1947115463&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_508" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 508 (1947) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1970112359&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Merrin Jewelry Co. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 49 F.R.D. 54 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (investigatory analysis of facts, credibility and inferences -- held, not cover ed by } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 }

{\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977106483&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Attorney General of United States v. Covington & Burling, 430 F. Supp. 1117 (D.D .C. 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (attorney registered as lobbying agent for foreign government held required to file documents on ground that } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 does not extend to information learned by attorneys from own investigations); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1966117744&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_493" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 McCullough Tool Co. v. Pan Geo Atlas Corp., 40 F.R.D. 490, 493-94 (S.D. Tex. 196 6) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (attorney\rquote s notes on negotiations with third parties may not be conceale d even though they contained mental impressions, theories and conclusions of cou nsel. \u8220\'3fPlaintiff must be prepared fully to disclose its role in the mat ters which it has brought before this court.\u8221\'3f) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_158_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_158_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *158 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The same rules also apply to counsel for government agencies. In SEC v. Stratto n Oakmont, Inc., 92 Civ. 1993 (order, S.D.N.Y. May 26, 1992), the court ordered the SEC to turn over \u8220\'3fnotes of conversations with non-parties, taken by the SEC while conducting a fact gathering investigation and prior to the Commis sion\rquote s determination to institute litigation against [the defendants].\u8 221\'3f The argument before Judge Sprizzo centered on the distinction between wo rk product under Hickman v. Taylor and lawyer conducted investigations under UpJ ohn. The court concluded that when lawyers are used for investigations, the work product doctrine is not implicated. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991175026&pubNum=578&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Spectrum Systems International Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d, 581 N.E.2d 105 5 (1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (lawyer\rquote s report to client which contained facts gleaned from investigat ion, including interviews with third parties, held } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 because \u8220\'3fin transmitting legal advice and furnishing legal services it will often be necessary for a lawyer to refer to non} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 matter\u8221\'3f and acknowledging attorney\rquote s fact-gathering role \u8220 \'3fincident to the rendition of legal advice and services.\u8221\'3f); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989084026&pubNum=578&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

Rossi v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Greater New York, 73 N.Y.2d 588, 592, 540 N.E.2d 703 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (staff lawyer\rquote s notes of interviews, communicated to client, held, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1973104265&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_463" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Penn Central Comm\rquote l Paper Litig., 61 F.R.D. 453, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 1973 ) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (dictum that mental impressions, opinions and evaluations of the results of a \ u8220\'3fdue diligence\u8221\'3f investigation, and communications of such to cl ient, are } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court ruled that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 had been waived.); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1971104129&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_46" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Jack Winter, Inc. v. Koratron Co., 54 F.R.D. 44, 46-47 (N.D. Cal. 1971) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (communications to attorney to keep him apprised of continuing business develop ments with implied request for his legal advice as to such developments, and com munications from attorney to client to post client on legal developments and imp

lications arising from such developments but without specific request by client for such advice -- held, \u8220\'3fdoubts . . . resolved in favor of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8221\'3f since \u8220\'3fthe attorney\rquote s counsel is vital to the conduct of business\u8221\'3f and in order that \u8220\'3fthe } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 not be downgraded in the interests of expedient results\u8221\'3f); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1973104225&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_39" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Eutectic Corp. v. Metco, Inc., 61 F.R.D. 35, 39 (E.D.N.Y. 1973) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . And it has been held irrelevant that the services could have been performed by non-lawyers. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1966118706&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Chore-Time Equip., Inc. v. Big Dutchman, Inc., 255 F. Supp. 1020 (W.D. Mich. 196

6) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (patent practitioner); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1962112534&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Summe, 208 F. Supp. 925 (E.D. Ky. 1962) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_159_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_159_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *159 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (accountant); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1958108482&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Ellis-Foster Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 159 F. Supp. 917 (D.N.J. 1958) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&pubNum=780&cite=365US813&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&t ransitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 365 U.S. 813 (1961) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (patent practitioner). The line of cases holding that } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 may include publicly obtained or technical information as long as the informati on was communicated in confidence by the client was summarized by District Judge Murray in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980012186&pubNum=867&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_867_933" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Nestle Co. v. A. Cherney & Sons, Inc., 207 U.S.P.Q. 930, 933 (D. Md. 1980) }}}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , a tradename dispute between Nestle and Hershey over Reese\rquote s Crunchy Pea nut Butter Cup. See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978121778&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Ampicillin Antitrust Litig., 81 F.R.D. 377 (D.D.C. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Federal vs. State Law. The New York state law of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 appears broader than the federal law. This disparity was most recently seen in contemporaneous state and federal decisions with essentially opposite holdings. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991175026&pubNum=578&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Spectrum Systems International Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 371, 581 N.E.2d 1055 (1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the New York Court of Appeals expanded } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to include a lawyer\rquote s communication to a client that includes informatio n obtained from a third party if in its full content and context the communicati on was made \u8220\'3fin order to render legal advice or services to the client. \u8221\'3f The Southern District of New York in Pine Top Insurance, Co. Ltd. v. Alexander & Alexander Services, Inc., No. 85 Civ. 9860, 1991 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14 610 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1991), in an order released only two weeks prior to the Sp ectrum decision, asserted a far narrower definition of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , limiting the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to communications made by the client for the purpose of securing legal advice. The contrast between the state and federal definitions may create a paradoxical situation when a state claim is brought to federal court pendent to a federal cl aim or because of diversity jurisdiction. }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In such a scenario there could be conflicting rulings on } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 as to the same evidence on the federal claims than on the state claims. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Work Product. But the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 protects an attorney\rquote s notes containing his mental impressions, made \u8 220\'3f\rquote with an eye toward litigation\u8221\'3f\rquote , a protection tha t \u8220\'3f\rquote is so well recognized and so essential to an orderly working of our system of legal procedure.\u8221\'3f\rquote } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989149780&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_12" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Horn & Hardart Co. v. Pillsbury Co., 888 F.2d 8, 12 (2d Cir. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (quoting } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1947115463&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_512" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 512-13 (1947) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_160_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_160_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

*160 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Advocacy for Self-Evaluative } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See J.F.X. Peloso, The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 for Self-Critical Analysis: Protecting the Public by Protecting the Confidentia lity of Internal Investigations in the Securities Industry, 18 Securities Reg. L . J. 229 (1990). Mr. Peloso, in a well-reasoned article, cites the importance of internal audits by compliance departments among securities brokers and otherwis e in industry, and argues that } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is necessary to encourage full disclosure and to encourage economies resulting from use of trained lay people. He cites to state laws and cases extending } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to medical peer reviews, and makes an effort to distinguish } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990018297&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 (1990) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , which denied } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to an academic peer review in a case claiming discrimination. See also C. Evan Stewart, Self-Critical Analysis: An Emerging } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ?, N.Y.L.J., Dec. 17, 1992 at 5. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Although declining to recognize the existence of a self-evaluative } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , or to apply a self-evaluative } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to routine safety reviews, the Ninth Circuit nevertheless set forth criteria fo r such a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . First, the party must be seeking to protect from disclosure a critical self-an alysis of itself. Second, a strong public interest must exist in the free flow o f relevant information within such an internal analysis. Third, such flow must b e the type which would be diminished by discovery. Finally, the information must have been intended to be and actually remained confidential. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992137872&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_426" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Dowling v. Am. Ha. Cruises, Inc., 971 F.2d 423, 426 (9th Cir. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992222955&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 T.W.A.R., Inc. v. Pac. Bell, 145 F.R.D. 105 (N.D. Cal. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Cf. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1993067607&pubNum=162&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 CPC Int\rquote l, Inc. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 262 N.J. Super 19 1, 620 A.2d 462 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Recognizing the existence of a self-evaluative } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984139426&pubNum=590&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Wylie v. Mills, 195 N.J. Super. 332 (Law Div. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 where it was applied), but refusing to apply it to an environmental cleanup cas e because of the intent of the New Jersey Legislature to subject environmental c leanups to public scrutiny and the liberal discovery practices of the State.). \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. No } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 for Auditors\rquote Reserves for Contingent Liabilities. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Resolving a split among the Circuits, the Supreme Court held that there was no } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to protect accountants\rquote work papers in evaluating the adequacy of a comp any\rquote s reserves against tax } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_161_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_161_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *161 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 contingencies. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984114234&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805 (1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Arthur Young & Co., in performing an audit of its client, Amerada Hess Corp., collected management\rquote s \u8220\'3fopinions, speculations, and projections\ u8221\'3f in light of the applicable laws and facts, leading to an estimate of t he company\rquote s probable exposure to additional tax liability. The IRS, inci dent to a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 investigation of Amerada Hess Corp., subpoenaed the work papers reflecting this process, and Arthur Young & Co., following instructions of its client, resisted . The IRS\rquote petition for enforcement was granted by the District Court, bu t the Court of Appeals reversed, finding a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 akin to \u8220\'3fwork product\u8221\'3f under } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1947115463&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Supreme Court held, first, that the tax accrual work papers were relevant, t hat is, that they would likely throw \lquote light upon\rquote the correctness of the return.\u8221\'3f Id. at 813. And they could not be withheld by an extens ion of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , for Congress had decided to give \u8220\'3fexpansive information-gathering aut hority\u8221\'3f to the IRS, a policy that favored disclosure except if one of t he traditional } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 applied. The Supreme Court- refused to extend the work product immunity of Hick man v. Taylor to accountants\rquote tax accrual work papers, finding the analog y inapt. \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Hickman work product doctrine was founded upon the private attorney\rquote s role as the client\rquote s confidential advisor and advocate, a loyal represen tative whose duty it is to present the client\rquote s case in the most favorabl e possible light. An independent certified public accountant performs a differen t role. By certifying the public reports that collectively depict a corporation\ rquote s financial status, the independent auditor assumes a public responsibili ty transcending any employment relationship with the client. The independent pub lic accountant performing this special function owes ultimate allegiance to the corporation\rquote s creditors and stockholders, as well as to [the] investing p ublic. This \lquote public watchdog\rquote function demands that the accountant maintain total independence from the client at all times and requires complete fidelity to the public } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_162_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_162_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *162 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 trust. To insulate from disclosure a certified public accountant\rquote s inter pretations of the client\rquote s financial statements would be to ignore the si gnificance of the accountant\rquote s role as a disinterested analyst charged wi th public obligations. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The American Bar Association recommends a specific disclaimer, in requests by cl ients to counsel, and in counsel\rquote s reports to auditors, that no waiver of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 or work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is intended. The client should write: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 We do not intend that either our request to you to provide information to our au ditor or your response to our auditor should be construed in any way to constitu te a waiver of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 or the attorney work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The attorney should write: \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Company . . . has advised us that, by making the request set forth in its le tter to us, the Company . . . does not intend to waive the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 with respect to any information which the Company . . . has furnished to us. Mo reover, please be advised that our response to you should not be construed in an y way to constitute a waiver of the protection of the attorney work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 with respect to any of our files involving the Company . . .. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Report, Subcommittee on Audit Inquiry Responses, Committee on Law and Accounting , Am. Bar Ass\rquote n, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0101308044&pubNum=1105&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Inquiry of a Client\rquote s Lawyer Concerning Litigation, Claims and Assessment

s: Auditing Interpretation AU Section 337, 45 Bus. Law. 2245 (1990) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . (The disclaimer might be written to extend to information as well as files.) T he American Institute of Certified Public Accountants considers the disclaimer a s always having been implicit in attorneys\rquote audit reports on claims and l itigation contingencies, and not a qualification on scope of requested responses . Auditing Standards Bd., Am. Inst. Cert. Pub. Acct., AU 9337 (Dec. 1989). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The opinions of counsel with regard to the make-up of the reserves are potential ly } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_163_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_163_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *163 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 a document-by-document analysis is required to decide questions of confidential ity, whether disclosures were made for the purpose of further disclosures to the SEC or other third parties, etc. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990047514&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Rockwell Int\rquote l, 897 F.2d 1255 (3d Cir. 1990) }}} \par } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 VIII. Inapplicability of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 -- Considerations of Fairness. \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. Pleading Reliance on Advice of Counsel. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 State official defends against prisoner\rquote s civil rights suit ( } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS1983&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7 ab161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType =DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 42 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 1983 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ) by pleading \u8220\'3fgood faith\u8221\'3f defense -- held, lawyer-client comm unications relevant to that defense are waived. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975105016&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D. Wash. 1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See also Broad v. Rockwell Int\rquote l Corp., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 95,894 (N.D. Tex. 1977) (pleading reliance on advice of counsel waives } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Habeas corpus. Communications relevant to claim that constitutional rights ha d been violated and not voluntarily waived. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1965102363&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_71" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Henderson v. Heinze, 349 F.2d 67, 71 (9th Cir. 1965) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1967115725&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_327" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Laughner v. United States, 373 F.2d 326, 327 (5th Cir. 1967) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Patents. Courts have been divided with regard to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 status of technical information confided to counsel for purpose of a disclosure document -- for example, a disclosure to patent counsel for an application to t he Patent Office. Compare Knogo Corp. v. United States, 213 U.S.P.Q. (Ct. Cl. 19 80), with } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977125628&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hercules Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 434 F.Supp. 136 (D. Del. 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992192505&pubNum=0000999&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=c blt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 144 F.R.D. 372, 1992 WL 3 21375 (N.D. Cal. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , in which the court rejected its earlier rationale in favor of Knogo, recognizi ng that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 attaches to private communications between inventor and lawyer consisting of te chnical information. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Using The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 as a Shield and a Sword. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1964114416&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 TWA, Inc. v. Hughes, 332 F.2d 602 (2d Cir. 1964) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. dismissed, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1965202800&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 380 U.S. 248 (1965) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (claimant of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 should not have a shield if he seeks to use } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 matter as a sword); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974104601&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_689" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Garfinkle v. Arcata Nat\rquote l Corp., 64 F.R.D. 688, 689 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (same); 8 Wigmore, Evidence \u167\'3f 2328 (3d ed. 1961). (A party cannot offer his attorney\rquote s testimony or otherwise affirmatively assert reliance upon an attorney\rquote s advice and then refuse to disclose such advice.) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_164_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_164_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *164 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. Duress. Claim that contract is void because of duress waives } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 as to communications relevant to the formation of the contract. The court liken s situation to negligence cases, where patient is held to waive doctor-patient } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 by placing his health in issue. }

{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1970103094&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_229" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Jack Winter, Inc. v. Koratron Co., 50 F.R.D. 225, 229 (N.D. Cal. 1970) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 5. Statute of Limitations. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976102741&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Connell v. Bernstein-Macauley, Inc., 407 F. Supp. 420 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , plaintiff argued that defendant was estopped from invoking the statute of limi tations because defendant induced plaintiff to defer filing suit to give time to defendant to pursue certain business remedies. Held, defendant may inquire into communications between plaintiff and its counsel to ascertain if plaintiff with held suit solely, or principally, for the reason asserted. Citing } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975105016&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_574" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. at 574, }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Judge Whitman Knapp ruled that there is an exception to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 when, the party asserting the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 placed information protected by it in issue through some affirmative act for hi s own benefit, and to allow the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to protect against disclosure of such information would have been manifestly un fair to the opposing party. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 6. Denial of Plaintiff\rquote s Allegations. In re Consolidated Litigation conce rning Int\rquote l harvester, 81 Civ. 7076 (N.D. Ill., July 17, 1987) holds that a waiver does not occur where the party asserting } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 has merely denied the plaintiff\rquote s allegations. Waiver arises where a par ty relies } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3fon a legal claim or defense the truthful resolution of which will requ ire examining confidential } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communications.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987044035&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1098" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Lorenz v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 815 F.2d 1095, 1098 (7th Cir. 1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 states that \u8220\'3f[t]o waive the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 by voluntarily injecting an issue in the case, a defendant must do more than me rely deny a plaintiff\rquote s allegations.\u8221\'3f In Lorenz, the defendant, to refute a claim of bad faith, had its former attorney testify that the defenda nt had offered to settle the plaintiff\rquote s claim after the suit was filed. Plaintiff, claiming that the settlement offer was made in bad faith, then sought

discovery of allegedly } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 memoranda between defendant and its former attorneys. The court found that the defendant had not waived the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 because \u8220\'3foffering to show that a post-filing offer of settlement had b een made } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_165_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_165_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *165 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 does not inject a new legal or factual issue into the case.\u8221\'3f Id. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Similarly, the court in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989144800&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. White, 887 F.2d 267 (D.C. Cir. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , held that a party does not waive the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 by \u8220\'3fa general denial of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 intent.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989144800&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 270 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court found that because the law required the government to prove intent, the defendant need not have offered any evidence to be acquitted for lack of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 intent. Hence, by merely denying } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 intent, a defendant does not trigger the reliance on advice of counsel waiver t o the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991018034&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285 (2d Cir. 1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (holding that the defendant\rquote s assertion of good faith, as distinguished from a general denial of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 intent, waives the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992083125&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Synalloy Corp. v. Gray, 142 F.R.D. 266 (D. Del. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Counterclaims of fraudulent misrepresentation and lack of understanding of a s ettlement agreement waived the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 for documents concerning reliance by claimant and understanding of the settleme nt). \par

} } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988110418&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Ward v. Succession of Freeman, 854 F.2d 780 (5th Cir. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , also did not find a waiver of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In Ward, the trial court ordered defendants to disclose documents which defend ants contended were } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Nonetheless, defendants produced the documents, and in preparing their defense , defendants utilized the contents of these documents. Plaintiffs then argued th at defendants utilized a reliance on advice of counsel defense, thus waiving the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in previously undisclosed communications. On appeal, however, the court held th at defendants did not voluntarily inject a reliance on advice of counsel issue i nto the trial. Rather, the court found that when a lower court compels disclosur e of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communications that plaintiffs use at trial to prove defendants\rquote sciente r, defendants do not automatically waive the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 by using those same communications to demonstrate their good faith reliance on counsel\rquote s advice. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 For a detailed discussion of the advice of counsel waiver of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , see Daniel J. Capra, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and Advice of Counsel Defense, N.Y.L.J., Nov. 8, 1991, at 3. Professor Capra st ated his conclusion as follows: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_166_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_166_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *166 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 It is a fact that advice of counsel is ordinarily sought before transactions li ke those in White and Bilzerian. Counsel\rquote s advice is an inextricable comp onent of good faith. If the defendant is allowed to testify to other aspects of good faith, free in the knowledge that counsel\rquote s negative advice will not come back to haunt him, unfairness and exploitation will result. \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 9. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 7. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Review of Waived Communication. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992019267&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Cruden v. Bank of New York, 957 F.2d 961 (2d Cir. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the trustees of a debenture defended against a claim of waste by alleging thei r good-faith-reliance on an opinion of outside counsel. The court held that the defense waived the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 that would otherwise exist. The trustees also asked a second lawyer, the inside counsel of the trustees\rquote organization, to evaluate the first lawyer\rquo te s advice. The second lawyer\rquote s advice could be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , and the issue of discovery as to the latter was within the district court\rquo te s discretion. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Selected Invocations of

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981139274&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_647" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass\rquote n v. Shamrock Broadcasting Co., 521 F. Supp . 638, 647 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3fa party cannot, by selective invocation of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , disclose documents or give testimony favorable to that party while failing to disclose cognate materials favorable to that part\u8221\'3f); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982118990&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793 (D.C. Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (counsel\rquote s representation that everything relevant to questionable payme nt investigation had been produced made it improper for } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client }

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to shield other documents); see also implied waiver cases, next section; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976143022&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_932" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 413 F. Supp. 926, 932-33 (N.D. Cal. 1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . (\u8220\'3fA party cannot affirmatively assert reliance upon an attorney\rquot e s advice and then refuse to disclose such advice.\u8221\'3f) If a party nevert heless asserts the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , he may be precluded from later offering the evidence. See also O\rquote Neal a nd Thompson, Vulnerability of Professional-Client } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in Shareholder Litigation, 31 Bus. Law 1775, 1778 (1976). In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978121774&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Panter v. Marshal Field & Co., 80 F.R.D. 718 (N.D. Ill. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , a tender offer was rejected on counsel\rquote s advice that the acquisition wo uld violate the antitrust laws. In a subsequent derivative suit by stockholders, the }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_167_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_167_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *167 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 counsel\rquote s opinion and related information were required to be produced. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRER612&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 FRE 612 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRER612&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fed. R. Evid. 612 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (document shown to a witness to refresh recollection); see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1972103753&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_13" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Bailey v. Meister Brau, Inc., 57 F.R.D. 11, 13 (N.D. Ill. 1972) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ( } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 writing shown to witness to refresh recollection - held, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 waived); compare } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1973104134&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_168" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., 60 F.R.D. 164, 168-69 (D. Del. 1973) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ( } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents used by witness to prepare for testimony, but not used to refresh rec ollection during testimony -- held, \u8220\'3fthere was no clear and intentional waiver of any } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 under the circumstances\u8221\'3f) with } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1972119272&pubNum=602&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Doxtator v. Swarthout, 38 A.D.2d 782, 328 N.Y.S.2d 150 (4th Dep\rquote t 1972) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3fWe think it a sound rule that writings used prior to testifying for the purpose of refreshing the memory of a witness be made available to the adver sary whether at the trial . . . or at pretrial examination. . . . \lquote the ri ght of a party to protection against the introduction against him of false, forg ed or manufactured evidence, which he is not permitted to inspect, must not be i nvaded by a hair\rquote s breadth.\u8221\'3f\rquote ). See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977125080&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 74 F.R.D. 613 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) }}}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978121776&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Wheeling - Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 81 F.R.D. 8 (N.D. Ill. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The use of a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 document to refresh a witness\rquote recollection may waive the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 as to the document but not beyond the document. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980151897&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_350" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Marshall v. United States Postal Service, 88 F.R.D. 348, 350-51 (D.D.C. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . A further extension of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 would risk subjecting the attorney to being called as a witness. But cf., } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979115332&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Ford v. Philips Elec. Instr. Co., 82 F.R.D. 359 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

(E.D. Pa. 1979) (inquiry into questions and lines of inquiry used by counsel to prepare witness, held, objectionable). In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978120870&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Buckley, 586 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979232878&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 440 U.S. 982 (1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , an accused tried to impeach the chief prosecution witness by calling the witne ss\rquote lawyer to elicit communications by the witness to the lawyer which th e accused hoped would show bias. The effort was refused because of the existence of modes of proof alternative to invasion of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980102501&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_119" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Muller & Phipps (Hawaii) Ltd., 85 F.R.D. 118, 119-20

(W.D. Mo. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (production of attorney-witness correspondence file not required). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Resolving a demand to see what a witness was shown in preparation prior to his d eposition } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_168_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_168_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *168 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 raises nice questions, as between a bias toward disclosure and work product pro tection. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985120086&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312 (3d Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985251042&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 474 U.S. 903 (1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the court of appeals rejected a demand to have such documents produced, out of the hundreds of thousands that were in the case, ruling that \u8220\'3fopinion\ u8221\'3f work product was implicated and that there is, in that sense, almost a n \u8220\'3fabsolute protection from discovery.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 [T]he process of selection and distillation is often more critical than pure leg al research. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 316. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

But courts have discretion, and decisions often go the other way. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982102989&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_142" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 James Julian, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 93 F.R.D. 138, 142-43 (D. Del. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the issue to be decided was whether the showing of a selection of documents to aid in the preparation of witnesses for testifying at depositions constituted a waiver of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 under } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRER612&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court held that such use constituted a waiver, citing } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978121776&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 81 F.R.D. 8 (N.D. Ill. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and quoting from } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977125080&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_616" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 74 F.R.D. 613, 616 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 [T]here is much to be said for a view that a party or its lawyer, meaning to inv oke the

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , ought to use other, and different materials, available later to a cross examin er, in the preparation of witnesses. When this simple choice emerges the decisio n to give the work product to the witness could well be deemed a waiver of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982102989&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_145" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 James Julian, 93 F.R.D. at 145 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court further observed: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Without reviewing those binders defendants\rquote counsel cannot know or inquir e into the extent to which the witnesses\rquote testimony has been shaded by co unsel\rquote s presentation of the factual background . . . . Plaintiff\rquote s counsel made a decision to educate their witnesses by supplying them with the b inders, and the Raytheon defendants are } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_169_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_169_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *169 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 entitled to know the content of that education.

\par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982102989&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 146 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Pictures shown to a witness to aid his recollection, included in a book of work product prepared by an attorney, are held subject to discovery, even though the selection and ordering of facts from a mass of information would normally be pro tected from discovery as work product. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988020798&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Joint E. and S. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 119 F.R.D. 4 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Sifton, J.). The court noted that the collation of documents, and the ordering and selection of facts, have been given absolute protection as revealing the at torney\rquote s intended lines of proof and legal strategy, see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985120086&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312 (3d Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985251042&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 474 U.S. 903 (1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; the collation and ordering before Judge Sifton, however, did not indicate much about legal theory, and a balancing test, required under both } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRER612&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fed. R. Evid. 612 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

and } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCPR26&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , was resolved by ordering production of the withheld documents. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. Settlement Conversations. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A government informant was present at conferences where protestors against a nuc lear power plant had meetings with their attorneys to discuss trial strategy. Th e presence of the informant caused the government voluntarily to dismiss the ind ictment. The persons accused then brought a civil rights action. The issue was w hether the bringing of that action constituted a waiver of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 that would have otherwise existed with regard to the discussions held at those meetings. The court held that } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was not waived automatically; an evaluation had to be conducted. The district c ourt would have to consider the government\rquote s justification for not withdr awing the informant, the plaintiff\rquote s allegation that the informant was in fact privy to confidential information that was discussed at the meetings with counsel, the detriments that would arise from the disclosure of any confidential information that was discussed, the issues regarding punitive damages, and the like. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988015215&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Greater Newburyport Clamshell Alliance v. Public Serv. Co. of New Hampshire, 838

F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See also Grant } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992076591&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Thornton v. Syracuse Sav. Bank, 961 F.2d 1042 (2nd Cir. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ( } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 may be waived where settlement becomes issue in litigation. However, discovery of a settlement agreement in an ongoing } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_170_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_170_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *170 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 litigation is only permissible upon the laying of a proper foundation.); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1972103710&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_431" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 American Optical Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc., 56 F.R.D. 426, 431 (D. Mass. 1972)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3fclients and lawyers should not have to fear that positions on legal issues taken during negotiations waive the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 so that the private opinions and reports drafted by an attorney for his client become discoverable.\u8221\'3f) See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRER408&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fed. R. Evid. 408 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3fEvidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is . . . not admissible . . . .\u8221\'3f). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 E. Work Product and Recorded Testimony. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The introduction of recorded testimony, via audio or visual tapes, although pote ntially relevant and persuasive, can also lead to significant prejudice to the w itness who is subject of the tapes. Thus, the courts have been forced to make de

terminations as to how to avoid the prejudice while allowing the probative value of the tapes not to be lost. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Visual Work product of Injured Plaintiffs. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The introduction of surveillance tapes at trial for cross-examination can signif icantly enhance a defendant\rquote s case by questioning the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 truth } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 of the plaintiff\rquote s testimony. However, without pretrial authentication, a plaintiff could be prejudiced by manipulated films. The New York Court of Appe als, in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992182105&pubNum=578&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 DiMichel v. South Buffalo Ry., 80 N.Y.2d 184, 604 N.E.2d 63 (1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , settled a dispute among New York\rquote s four judicial departments by finding that full disclosure of surveillance tapes following the deposition of the plai ntiff will best protect the interests of both parties and the litigation process . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 New York law requires \u8220\'3ffull disclosure of all evidence material and nec essary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of p roof.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1000059&cite=NYCPS3101&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 McKinneys C.P.L.R. 3101 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (a) (1991). However, material gathered in preparation of litigation is subject t o a qualified } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . A showing of material need and undue hardship must be made in order to overcom e this } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The Court found the need to authenticate surveillance evidence overcomes this burden \u8220\'3f[b]ecause films are so easily altered, [that] there is a very r eal danger that deceptive tapes, inadequately authenticated, could contaminate t he trial process.\u8221\'3f } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at ?. A film shown to a jury before } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_171_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_171_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *171 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 authentication may result in prejudice to the plaintiff\rquote s case that will not be mitigated even by a showing of alteration. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Such prejudice will be prevented by requiring full pretrial disclosure of survei llance tapes. Full disclosure will also enhance the settlement process and lesse n delay at trial. Still, defendants will retain the opportunity to question the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 truth } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 of plaintiff\rquote s assertions of diminished physical condition by requiring plaintiff to submit to a deposition before the disclosure of the films. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 New York\rquote s decision parallels the prevailing opinion in the Federal court

s. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989068964&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_507" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Forbes v. Hawiian Tug & Barge, 125 F.R.D. 505, 507 (D. Ha. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3f[W]hile surveillance films made in connection with the defense of a personal injury action are ostensibly of an impeaching character, the weight of authority favors their discovery.\u8221\'3f); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986123179&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_161" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Daniels v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 110 F.R.D. 160, 161 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Defendant must give full disclosure of surveillance films after the deposition of the plaintiff.); Martin v. L.I.R. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974104467&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_55" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 R., 63 F.R.D. 53, 55 (E.D.N.Y. 1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3fSince the plaintiff\rquote s past activities obviously can no longer be filmed, the barrier of the work product rule is lifted.\u8221\'3f). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1966102508&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_155" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hikel v. Abousy, 41 F.R.D. 152, 155 (D. Md. 1966) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Defendant is not required to answer an interrogatory seeking whether the defen dant has knowledge and/or possession of any post-accident surveillance films. \u 8220\'3f[I]nterrogatories need not be answered when the only purpose of the inte rrogatory is to prevent effective cross-examination.\u8221\'3f); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1959109040&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_270" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

Bogatay v. Montour R.R., 177 F. Supp. 269, 270 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (W.D. Pa. 1959) (In rejecting plaintiff\rquote s interrogatory inquiring as to the existence of surveillance, the court stated that \u8220\'3f[t]he plaintiff d espite liberality of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure still has the burden o f proof. The least he should be required to do is to state whether he can carry on work. He should state this honestly and not make such answer depend on whethe r the defendant has or has not observed his activities.\u8221\'3f). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Work product and Audio Tapes of Testimony. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 At least one court has refused to apply analogous reasoning to audio tapes of wi tness } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_172_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_172_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *172 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 testimony. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992182814&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Bogan v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 144 F.R.D. 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the court permitted the discovery of audio tapes of third party testimony. The tapes had been made without the knowledge of the witnesses. The court exhibited comparable concerns in finding that \u8220\'3fsurprise production of such tapes at trial would lead to delay and confusion.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992182814&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 53 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . However, rather than finding the use of audio tapes valuable in impeaching tes timony, the court found that the use of audio tapes \u8220\'3fmight lead to dist ortion of witness\rquote testimony because of concern over how the tapes might be used.\u8221\'3f Id. Moreover, the court held that the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege }

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 did not apply because the tapes, and direct transcripts of the tapes, even if m ade in preparation of litigation, in no way implicated the thoughts or legal the ories of counsel. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1993066972&pubNum=0000999&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=c blt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Miano v. AC & R Advertising, Inc., 148 F.R.D. 68, 1993 WL 67917 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in which the court held that a lawyer could be disciplined under Disciplinary R ule 7-104(A)(1) for causing the taping of conversations with parties to a suit o nly if (1) if the person taped is a party to the action; (2) was known to be rep resented at the time the conversation was taped; and (3) counsel \u8220\'3fcause d\u8221\'3f the taping. DR 7-104(A)(1) prohibits contact by a lawyer of a party known to be represented by counsel without prior permission of that party\rquote s counsel without prior permission of that party\rquote s counsel. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court followed the Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics of the New York City Bar Association in finding that \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3fcausing\u8221\'3f a client to communicate with another party . . . inc ludes not just using the client as an agent or in the place of the lawyer for ma king the communication, . . . but also the act of suggesting or recommending to the client that he or she engage in such communication, even though the lawyer h as no further involvement in or knowledge of the substance of the communication that subsequently takes place, or the endorsement or encouragement or such a cou rse of action, even when it is first raised or proposed by the client . . . . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id., at 11-12, quoting N.Y.C. Formal opinion No. 1991-2 at 7. The court conclude d that tapes made by plaintiff of employees of defendant were not at the behest of his counsel, and therefore, counsel was subject to discipline. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_173_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_173_1}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *173 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 IX. Loss of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 -- Waiver. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. Confidentiality Essential to } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The requirement of confidentiality is an essential part of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1958109761&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_165" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Leathers v. United States, 250 F.2d 159, 165-66 (9th Cir. 1957) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1949117262&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_938" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Himmelfarb v. United States, 175 F.2d 924, 938-39 (9th Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&pubNum=780&cite=338US860&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&t ransitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 338 U.S. 860 (1949) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Confidentiality is not breached by an attorney\rquote s use of investigators a nd agents, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975129818&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_238" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238-39 (1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 applied to statements taken by investigator); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979115349&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Dabney v. Investment Corp. of Amer., 82 F.R.D. 464 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (E.D. Pa. 1979). A corporation must show that allegedly } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents were available to corporate employees only on a \u8220\'3ffairly firm \lquote need to know\rquote basis.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1979115506&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Berkley & Co.), 466 F. Supp. 863 (D. Minn. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . A more liberal doctrine could eviscerate the rule of waiver. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 As long as the communication is made in confidence, there is no requirement that the information itself be of a confidential, i.e., non-public, quality. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978121778&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Ampicillin Antitrust Litig., 81 F.R.D. 377 (D.D.C. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Deliberate Waivers. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Knowing and Intentional. Waiver must be knowing and intentional. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1968112531&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 IBM v. Sperry Rand Corp., 44 F.R.D. 10 (D. Del. 1968) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976142738&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Blondis, 412 F. Supp. 286 (N.D. Ill. 1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (client testified of conversations with attorney -- held, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 waived. No waiver, however, from mere reference to conversations with attorney. ). But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981121069&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Weil v. Investment/Indicators, Research & Mgmt., Inc., 647 F.2d 18 (9th Cir. 198 1) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (assertion that defendant did not intend to waive the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 when it disclosed a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 discussion is insufficient to preserve } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ). There are two considerations that determine if there has been a waiver, inten tion and fairness. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . . . A } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

person would seldom be found to waive, if his intention not to abandon could al one control the situation. There is always also the objective consideration that when his conduct touches a certain point of disclosure, fairness requires that his } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 shall cease whether he intended that result or not. He cannot } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_174_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_174_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *174 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 be allowed, after disclosing as much as he pleases, to withhold the remainder. . . . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982118990&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_807" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 807 (D.C. Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (citations omitted). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Confidential Communications Incident to a Document that is to be Disclosed to Others. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Communications between an attorney and his client, although made privately, are not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

\u8220\'3fif it was understood that the information communicated in the convers ation was to be conveyed to others.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984109925&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 727 F.2d 1352 (4th Cir. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . A lawyer was called before a grand jury to testify about conversations between him and two stockbrokers who were united in interest with his client. The attor ney\rquote s conversations were to help him prepare an offering circular coverin g the sale of interests in a limited partnership. The court found that since the communications were ancillary to an intended publication of the document being prepared, the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was waived. \u8220\'3fThe critical circumstance,\u8221\'3f the court of appeals ruled, was \u8220\'3fthe absence of any intent that the information was to be k ept confidential.\u8221\'3f The court noted that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was not favored and was to be strictly construed \u8220\'3fwithin the narrowest possible limits.\u8221\'3f The court of appeals relied on cases where waiver wa s found from the publication of the document resulting from the confidential com munications, and extended the rule of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to the case where the document had not yet been published, but was intended to be published. The court did not consider that the client may have had a legitima te need for advice on what was required to be disclosed and to what extent. Quer y if there is any scope to } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 where, ultimately, a public disclosure document is intended. The communication of information to an attorney for purposes of preparing a document to be filed w ith a government agency waives the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , even as to information not made part of the filing. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983127429&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Lawless, 709 F.2d 485 (7th Cir. 1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court held that such a communication is essentially not confidential, and that lack of confidentiality extends to information having even the \u8220\'3fpo tential\u8221\'3f for transmission to a third party. Query if the client\rquote s communication is accompanied by requests for legal advice as to what should, a nd should not, be included in the disclosure documents. See also, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980133872&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Flores, 628 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (communications to attorney to enable him to } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_175_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_175_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *175 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 prepare and file an affidavit in support of a claim to suppress evidence obtain ed by an allegedly illegal search of a motorcycle club. After defendant was foun d guilty of unlawfully possessing a firearm, his attorney was compelled to testi fy about his client\rquote s communications to him). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Fourth Circuit\rquote s rule of waiver was followed by the District of Colum bia Circuit. In re: } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989095873&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1

.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Sealed Case, 877 F.2d 976 (D.C. Cir. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Six documents had been withheld from production required by IRS and grand jury subpoenas investigating a company and its chief executive officer for failing t o report rebates exacted from subcontractors on government contracts. The docume nts consisted of notes by internal counsel of advice given by outside counsel, a nd instructions to the chief accounting officer how to amend the books and recor ds in order to implement the legal advice. The district court ordered production on the ground that the documents gave details with regard to information that w as to be reported publicly, i.e., to the IRS, and because one document had been inadvertently produced by the chief accounting officer and that waived the rest. Subsequently, the internal counsel received a grant of immunity and, pursuant t o the grant, produced the six documents to the grand jury. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court of appeals, affirming the district court, first ruled that } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 existed. The documents, it held, consist of much more than details of informati on ultimately to be disclosed, for the issue urged by the government is that the books and records were corrected, not voluntarily, but because of counsel\rquot e s advice coming after the investigation had begun: hence, proving mens rea. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Although the fact of consulting an attorney, or receiving advice from an attorne y, is generally not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 may exist \u8220\'3fin the rare case when a \lquote strong possibility exists t hat disclosure of the information would implicate the client in the very matter

for which legal advice was sought in the first case.\u8221\'3f\rquote } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989095873&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 979 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (citations omitted). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court of appeals then went on to discuss waiver; its rulings in favor of wai ver were broad: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The courts will grant no greater protection to those who assert the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 than their own precautions warrant. We therefore agree with those courts which have held that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_176_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_176_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *176 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is lost, \u8220\'3feven if the disclosure is inadvertent.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989095873&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 980 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Bureaucratic error in a large company, it held, was merely a species of inadve rtence, and not an excuse. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 [I]f a client wishes to preserve the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , it must treat the confidentiality of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communications like jewels -- if not crown jewels. Short of court-compelled dis closure, . . . or other equally extraordinary circumstances, we will not disting uish between various degrees of \u8220\'3fvoluntariness\u8221\'3f in waivers of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client }

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989095873&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 980 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (citations omitted). And, the court of appeals continued, waiver \u8220\'3fexte nds \lquote to all other communications relating to the same subject matter\u822 1\'3f\rquote , and not just the document produced. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989095873&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 981 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (citation omitted). The court of appeals remanded this issue for a document-bydocument analysis. Finally, the court decided that the grand jury could consider the documents obtained by granting immunity to counsel, even if intrusion on } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was the exchange, for the grand jury has the right to consider information even from constitutionally improper searches. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984118043&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1

.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1036" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Re Grand Jury S.D.T. dated Sept. 15, 1983 (Marc Rich & Co. A.G. v. United Sta tes), 731 F.2d 1032, 1036 n.3 (2d Cir. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , and cases cited ( } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 held to extend to confidential communications even though memoranda thereof, wh en put into final version, might eventually be sent to persons other than the cl ient). Drafts, however, of a publicly-filed document (with the SEC, in this case ) can be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , for they allow inferences of what the client communicated in confidence to cou nsel that differed from the public disclosure. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986127823&pubNum=162&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Jedwab v. MGM Grand Hotels, Inc., 509 A.2d 584 (Del. Ch. Ct. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See also Note, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0101475268&pubNum=3050&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Disclosure Under the Securities Laws: Implications For the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , 90 Colum. L. Rev. 456 (1990) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Arguing that \u8220\'3fwhen a party consults an attorney for the purpose of pr eparing or considering the preparation of a document for public disclosure in or der to comply with the securities laws, the client waives the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 only with } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_177_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_177_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *177 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

respect to the information that is actually disclosed to the public.\u8221\'3f) . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Ultimately, the issue is probably decided according to the court\rquote s view o f the client\rquote s presumed intent. The Fourth Circuit asks, did the client r easonably expect that the lawyer\rquote s services would \u8220\'3fentail the pu blication of the clients\rquote communications\u8221\'3f, and seems to presume against a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in drafts. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984155175&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_875" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. (Under Seal), 748 F.2d 871, 875-77 (4th Cir. 1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Other Circuits seem more willing to separate drafts reflecting confidential ad vice from the final products, holding that \u8220\'3fthe client intends that onl y as much of the information will be conveyed [to another and, hence, lose } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ] as the attorney concludes should be, and ultimately is, sent to [that other].\ u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1970113693&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Schlegel, 313 F. Supp. 177 (D. Neb. 1970) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988024882&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_1283" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

Schenet v. Anderson, 678 F. Supp. 1280, 1283-84 (E.D. Mich. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Disclosure in Response to Subpoenas. Parties may be reluctant to withhold } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents requested by a government agency or a grand jury in order to avoid th e inference of guilt or impropriety, or other disadvantage that may follow from such withholding. They may condition production on maintenance by the agency of confidentiality, or they may insist on a subpoena in preference to a voluntary p roduction. The concern is whether production in the first instance constitutes a waiver of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , disabling the party from resisting a subpoena by a second agency, grand jury o r court. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 a) Disclosure to Government Agencies. The rule of the D.C. Circuit is that produ cing information otherwise covered by the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to a government agency, even though protected by stipulations of confidentialit y, constitutes a waiver of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981150865&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Permian Corp. v. United States, 665 F.2d 1214 (D.C. Cir. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Permian, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, heavily involved in tender offer p rocedures, disclosed documents subject to the

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to the SEC, because that was the only practical way to obtain speedy clearance from the SEC of disclosures that had to be made to the public. Occidental had st ipulated with the SEC that it would not be prevented from asserting its } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 should the SEC want, or be required, to disclose the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_178_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_178_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *178 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information to others. Subsequently, the Department of Energy sought the inform ation, and Occidental tried to block disclosure by asserting the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court of appeals, reversing the district court, held that there was no such thing as a \u8220\'3flimited waiver\u8221\'3f with regard to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . A client should not be permitted: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to pick and choose among his opponents [and regulatory agencies] waiving the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 for some and resurrecting the claim of confidentiality to obstruct others. The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney }

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is not designed for such tactical employment. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 221. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was also involved. Concerning these documents, the court of appeals permitted t he sharing of work product and upheld the doctrine of \u8220\'3flimited waiver\u 8221\'3f as here applied, that is, a waiver limited to the government and not to benefit private litigants. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980139593&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1299" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. AT&T, 642 F.2d 1285, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (discussed in section discussing \u8220\'3fcommon interest\u8221\'3f).

\par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The D.C. Circuit has adhered to its rule against \u8220\'3flimited waiver,\u8221 \'3f notwithstanding different views of the eighth, and perhaps other circuits. See In re: } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989095873&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Sealed Case, 877 F.2d 976 (D.C. Cir. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984134895&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Subpoenas Duces Tecum (Fulbright & Jaworski), 738 F.2d 1367 (D.C. Cir. 198 4) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In the latter case, class and derivative plaintiffs who were suing Tesoro Corp oration in the Western District of Texas for manipulating its stock preliminaril y to \u8220\'3fgoing private\u8221\'3f and in order to avoid having to make publ ic disclosure of illegal payments to foreign officials, sought documents furnish ed by Tesoro\rquote s counsel and special investigating counsel to the SEC and t o a grand jury in the District of Columbia. The critical parts of the production were the report of special investigating counsel to the Board and the notes of the lawyers taken during the investigation, and plaintiffs petitioned in the dis trict court to compel production. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court of appeals confirmed its \u8220\'3femphatic rejection\u8221\'3f of the \u8220\'3flimited waiver\u8221\'3f doctrine, or that it should apply only as am ong federal agencies or grand juries. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_179_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_179_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *179 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 There is no meaningful distinction in the adventitious fact that only federal a gencies were involved in Permian. For the purpose of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , there is nothing special about another federal agency in the role of potential adversary as compared to private party litigants acting as adversaries. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984134895&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 1370 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 As to work product, the court of appeals ruled that there had been no common int erest between no common interest between the SEC and Tesoro. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 There is no question that the SEC was an adversary to Tesoro. This was not a par tnership between allies. Tesoro was not simply assisting the SEC in doing its jo b. Rather, Tesoro independently and voluntarily chose to participate in a thorou gh disclosure program, in return for which it received the quid pro quo of lenie nt punishment for any wrongdoings exposed in the process. That decision was obvi ously motivated by self-interest. \par

} } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984134895&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 1372 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The last point of the decision may mark a point of distinction. The court of app eals ruled that Tesoro had no \u8220\'3fproper expectations of confidentiality\u 8221\'3f because production had been made voluntarily, and not pursuant to subpo ena: therefore, such regulations as imparted confidentiality did not apply; and prior to negotiating a stipulation of confidentiality. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984134895&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 1372 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Even had there been such effort, however, it is doubtful that the court of app eals would have been sympathetic to even the limited work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Finally, we believe that no policy factor now inherent in the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 calls for a special exception for the SEC\rquote s voluntary disclosure program (or similar governmental enforcement projects). A healthy adversary system affo rds protection to an attorney\rquote s trial preparation as against actual and p otential opponents. But, as we have said, the

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 does } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_180_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_180_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *180 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 not protect against the manipulation of selecting a particular opponent for sel ective disclosure--most probably for the discloser\rquote s own benefit. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984134895&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 1374-75 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 b) Producing Documents Protected from Discovery by the Work Product Doctrine to Government Agencies. In Shulton, Inc. v. Optel Corp., No. 85-2925, slip op. (D.N .J. Nov. 4, 1987) (Sarokin, D.J.), the court held that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 begins when investigation by a company into a general problem turns specific. T here, the problem involved the diversion of products from the export to the dome stic market. Plaintiff had turned over its investigative file to several prosecu ting authorities and defendants, claiming waiver, demanded production. With resp ect to the issue of waiver, the court distinguished the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } }

{\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 from that } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 . The } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 of the \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 protects a confidential relationship; once the confidentiality is breached, the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ends. The work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , however, is intended to aid in trial preparation. The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ends if disclosure \u8220\'3fsubstantially increases the likelihood that an adv ersary will obtain the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information.\u8221\'3f Because there was little likelihood that the prosecuting agencies would be required to disclose the furnished information to the adversa ry, and due to the policy encouraging people to give evidence of crime to the go vernment, the court held against waiver. Accord } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980139593&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1299" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. American Tel. & Tel., 642 F.2d 1285, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par

} } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Judge Goettel of the Southern District of New York distinguished the D.C. Circui t cases, holding that the rule of absolute waiver was useful where a subsequent governmental or grand jury investigation was involved, but not where the evidenc e was sought in subsequent civil discovery in a private case. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982149675&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Schnell v. Schnall, 550 F. Supp. 650 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . This seems also to be the view of the Fourth Circuit, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979112622&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Weiss, 596 F.2d 1185 (4th Cir. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Another view is that disclosure to the SEC is not a waiver at all, to encourag e self-investigations and disclosures to the SEC, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977125046&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Diversified Industries, Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (en banc); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979117499&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_372" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated July 13, 1979, 478 F. Supp. 368, 372-73 (E.D. Wi sc. 979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (dissemination of report to SEC as part of SEC\rquote s voluntary disclosure pr ogram, to a grand jury and to IRS investigators, held, no } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_181_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_181_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *181 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 waiver of underlying notes -- \u8220\'3fvoluntary cooperation . . . would be su

bstantially curtailed if such cooperation were deemed to be a waiver of a corpor ation\rquote s } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8221\'3f); Brynes v. IDS Realty Trust, 545 Sec. Reg. L. Rep. (BNA) at A-9 (S.D .N.Y. Feb. 28, 1980) (ancillary proceedings, Diversified held binding, but see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988063393&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Fox v. California Sierra Fin. Servs., 120 F.R.D. 520 (N.D. Cal. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (where an attorney has voluntarily and selectively testified before the SEC, wi thout taking steps to protect the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 nature of such information, fairness requires a finding that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 has been waived as to the disclosed information and all information). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Magistrate Buchwald of the Southern District of New York held that a letter from the plaintiff to the SEC in response to a non-public, informal inquiry from the SEC, and a letter from the plaintiff to the U.S. Attorney\rquote s Office in co nnection with their grand jury investigation of unauthorized trading involving s ome of the defendants were covered by the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 because they contained information gathered in connection with the present liti gation. In addition, Magistrate Buchwald ruled that the production of these lett ers to the SEC and U.S. Attorney did not constitute a waiver of the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , stating: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 It is well settled that the disclosure of work product materials to third partie s does not constitute a waiver of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 unless the disclosure increases the adversary\rquote s opportunity to obtain th e materials. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 She noted that the plaintiff had sought confidential treatment from the SEC and

had a reasonable basis to believe that the material turned over to the SEC and U .S. Attorney would remain non-public. Furthermore, she added, \u8220\'3fthe publ ic policy concern of encouraging cooperation with law enforcement militates in f avor of a no waiver finding.\u8221\'3f Enron Corp. v. Borget, No. 88 Civ. 2828, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12471 (S.D.N.Y. September 22, 1990). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Some cases draw the distinction on procedural grounds. Thus, waiver was found be cause the party responded to the SEC subpoena without first resisting on the gro und of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , or seeking to cover its production by a stipulation or } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_182_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_182_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *182 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 reservation of confidentiality. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981139274&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass\rquote n of Amer. v. Shamrock Broadcasting Co., 52 1 F. Supp. 638 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Judge Connor noted that a disclosure that is compelled does not constitute a w aiver, but that the company\rquote s failure to seek protection for the otherwis e } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 material made the disclosure voluntary and not compelled. Response to a subpoen a alone does not constitute compulsion. See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981143754&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

United States v. Miller, 660 F.2d 563 (5th Cir. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , mod. on other grounds and reh. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982118902&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 675 F.2d 711 (5th Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , vacated as moot, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982136775&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 685 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (production to IRS and failure to ask if audits were for } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 or civil purposes). } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982149675&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Schnell v. Schnall, 550 F. Supp. 650 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 c) Third Circuit. The Third Circuit has lined itself squarely with the D.C. Circ uit, holding that a production of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents to the SEC during the course of an SEC investigation \u8220\'3feffect ed a complete waive of the }

{\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and the work product doctrine.\u8221\'3f The document thus had to be produced i n a civil case. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991204936&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3rd. Cir. 19 91) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 d) SEC Recommendations. The SEC has urged legislation to provide that the produc tion of information to the SEC should not constitute a waiver of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , and should be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, but that the SEC should be able to use the produced material in judicial or adminis trative proceedings, and to give the information to other government agencies. V I Legal Times, \u8220\'3fSEC Asks Congress to Clarify Law on } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8221\'3f, Feb. 27, 1984, at 2. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. Disclosures to Gain Advantage, in Litigation or Otherwise. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 a) Selective Disclosures. The production of documents, otherwise } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , to prove or disprove a related point waives the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986137481&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Bower v. Weisman, 639 F. Supp. 532 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Sweet, D.J.), writ of mandamus denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987147285&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 835 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987112488&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , counsel published a book of a celebrated case, disclosing } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 material. Only that which related to the disclosures was waived, and not all el se confided to counsel (public disclosures of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information create no risk of legal prejudice until } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_183_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_183_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *183 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 the disclosures became proof in litigation with the }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 party). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987100729&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Consol. Litig. concerning Int\rquote l Harvester, 666 F. Supp. 1148 (N.D. Ill. 1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 stretched the doctrine discouraging selective disclosure as far, perhaps, as it can go. Following International Harvester\rquote s spin-off of a subsidiary wit h antiquated and obsolescent plant, the subsidiary failed and filed for reorgani zation under the bankruptcy laws. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation sued as subrogee to recover the short fall in vested pensions. On depositions, execut ives of International Harvester testified, without objection, on conversations h eld before the sale by their counsel with PBGC, and on their opinions regarding those conversations. In addition, International Harvester\rquote s outside couns el advised that an opinion of an investment banker should be obtained, and that an opinion was made known to the investment banker. In both categories, the dist rict court ruled that there had been a waiver; \u8220\'3fvoluntary disclosure of } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communication constitutes waiver of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 as to all other such communications on the same subject,\u8221\'3f and allowing deposition testimony without objection makes the disclosure voluntary. Quoting from } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981121069&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_23" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Weil v. Investment/Indicators, Research & Management, Inc., 647 F.2d 18, 23-25 ( 9th Cir. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the district court held against allowing a party to \u8220\'3fselectively divu lge } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information . . . . Once a party abandons this confidence by submitting } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 material in the discovery proceeding, the rationale of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is dissipated, insofar as the subject matter of the disclosure is concerned.\u8 221\'3f Analogizing the situation to the cases concerned about unfair \u8220\'3f tactical advantage\u8221\'3f in selectively using }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the court went on with the quotation: \u8220\'3fWhenever a party discloses inf ormation which it could have withheld on the basis of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , an implicit determination of benefit has been made the party.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 b) Admissions Binding Clients. Selective disclosures may constitute admissions a s well as compromising } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRER801&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rule 801 (d)(2)(D) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 provides that statements of an agent concerning a matter within the scope of hi s agency, made during the existence of that relationship, are admissible against the principal. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989120338&pubNum=162&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 State v. Schubert, 235 N.J. Sup. 212, 561 A.2d 1186 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1990076496&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 110 S. Ct. 2600 (1990) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , an attorney, seeking to dissuade a prosecutor from indicting his client of ars on, related an alibi given to him by his client: } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_184_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_184_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *184 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 his client was at home, not at the scene of the crime, except for a short trip to the grocer to purchase a carton of milk. The client, however, had lied to his attorney, and the carton of milk turned out to be a key item of inculpatory evi dence. The client sought to suppress that evidence, arguing that his attorney ha d not been given authority to speak with the prosecutor. The court denied the mo tion, holding that attorneys have implied (apparent) authority to discuss such i nformation. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 5. Waivers by Trustees and Receivers. Resolving a split in the Circuits, the Sup reme Court held that a trustee in bankruptcy succeeds to the \u8220\'3fwide-rang ing\u8221\'3f authority of management, including \u8220\'3fthe traditional manag ement function of controlling the corporation\rquote s } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8221\'3f. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985121788&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 CFTC V. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343 (1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The Supreme Court reasoned that the trustee\rquote s duty to investigate the c onduct of prior management to uncover and assert causes of action against the de btor\rquote s officers and directors would be \u8220\'3fextremely difficult to c onduct\u8221\'3f if former management were allowed to control the corporation\rq uote s } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and, therefore, access to the corporation\rquote s legal files. The Supreme Cou rt ruled that interest of the trustee was more important than the countervailing federal interests advanced by former management. See, for an excellent analysis of the case-law prior to the decision and of policies that might be considered in future cases, S.F. Black, The } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0102123799&pubNum=1105&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Debtor\rquote s } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney }

} {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in Bankruptcy, 40 The Business Lawyer 879 (1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The author argues that a trustee should have the right to waive in connection with pre-, and not post-, petition } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 conversations, and with efforts to effectuate the estate\rquote s right to prop erty, and not to accommodate the interests of prosecutorial authorities or other third parties. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The trustee or conservator of a failed financial institution may even have the r ight to instruct counsel to surrender his work product. \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989173560&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Resolution Trust Corporation v. H.P.C., 128 F.R.D. 647 (N.D. Texas 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 the court granted a conservator\rquote s request for the delivery of the work p roduct of the thrift\rquote s former outside lawyers. A Texas Canon of Ethic req uired lawyers to return client papers; the court extended the obligation to retu rn to include attorney created work product. In American Continental Corporation /Lincoln Savings and Loan Securities Litigation, M.D.L. 834 (D. Az. 1990) the fe deral district court declared that \u8220\'3fall } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_185_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_185_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *185 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 arising out of or associated with ACC in-house work product, as defined in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCPR26&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , are waived.\u8221\'3f Presumably, that included the obligation to deliver such work product. The decisions did not discuss the difference between the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 protects the client; the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 would appear to protect both. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See also In re: } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990112150&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 American Continental Corp., 741 F. Supp. 1368 (D. Ariz. 1990) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (applying CFTC v. Weintraub under FIRREA; the interests of the Resolution Trust Company, as Receiver, outweighed the interests of former management even though control of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 would revert if former management prevailed in the litigation). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The issue in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988086432&pubNum=913&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Medcom Holding Co. v. Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc., 12 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 11 89 (N.D. Ill. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was whether new owners of a corporation could waive the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

owned by the former owner. The court held in favor of the new owner, for the re asons expressed in CFTC V. Weintraub, supra, where the two were adverse, but not where they were in a joint defense against a third party. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Although, under state law, a law firm has the right to retain legal files otherw ise returnable on demand to its client in order to secure payment from the clien t, the RTC, under the Financial Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), m ay override that right and compel return of the files; the law firm has only an administrative remedy to present and adjudicate its claim. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991194905&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 RTC v. Elman, 949 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court contrasted the requirement in bankruptcy that there be adequate secu rity given to the creditor in exchange; under FIRREA there was no such requireme nt. The court also distinguished } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989042018&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_579" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Coit Independence Joint Venture v. FSLIC, 489 U.S. 561, 579-87 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; under FSLIC, a bank receiver has less power than under FIRREA. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 6. Reports by Special Counsel. Counsel, engaged by a special litigation committe e of the board of directors to review whether a derivative litigation is in the corporate interest, risk the waiver of both their work product and the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 when they report to the special litigation committee. Work product immunity is waived if counsel communicates the subject matter to the committee, since the pa pers then may be part of the basis for the committee\rquote s recommendations to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_186_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_186_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *186 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 entire board. With regard to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 , a motion } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 privilege } } \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 made to the court to dismiss the derivative litigation waives the \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982149013&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_893" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 893 (2d Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied sub nom., } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&pubNum=780&cite=460US1051&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0& transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 City Trust v. Joy, 460 U.S. 1051 (1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (citing } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982117558&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Re John Doe Corporation, 675 F.2d 482 (2d Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ), (disclosure of review to attorney for underwriter and to auditor-- held, waiv er); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984119897&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Continental Illinois Securities Lit., 732 F.2d 1302 (7th Cir. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In Continental Illinois Securities Lit., the court held that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and the work product immunity were waived once a special litigation report was used in an adjudicative procedure to advance the corporate interest -- in this c ase in support of a motion to dismiss a derivative suit. The issue of waiver aro se on an application of newspaper reporters to gain access to the report, with t he court of appeals holding that, in light of the use made of the special report , the interest of the public outweighed any private interests. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Compare, however, In re Dayco Corp. Derivative Securities Litigation, S.D. Ohio, Oct. 21, 1983, 15 Sec. Reg. & L. Rep. (BNA) 2100. The District Court held that the release of the findings of an investigative report, without any summary of t he evidence, did not waive the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 or work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The press release stated merely that the obligations of a derivative suit were found to be \u8220\'3fentirely unsubstantiated,\u8221\'3f without disclosing th e facts which led to this conclusion or the substance of the report. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

Citing } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983121205&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc., 97 F.R.D. 703 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the district court ruled that disclosure would have been required if the subst ance of the report, as well as its conclusion, would have been disclosed. The di strict court also ruled that the expense of repeating the investigative work in gathering documents and deposing witnesses did not satisfy the \u8220\'3fsubstan tial need/undue hardship\u8221\'3f tests for invading the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 However, the distribution of a memorandum containing advice of counsel to a narr ow group of people within the company whose knowledge of the contents of the mem orandum was essential was held to be \u8220\'3freasonable and necessary,\u8221\' 3f and not a waiver, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982102989&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_141" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 James Julian, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 93 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Del. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Nor was the filing of such document in an unlocked file a waiver, for \u8220\' 3fthe fact that some unauthorized corporate personnel may purposely or inadverte ntly read a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 document does not render that document non} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_187_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_187_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *187

} } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 confidential\u8221\'3f; an alternate system would be unreasonably burdensome. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 7. Presumptive Loss of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 if Affected Papers Are in Corporate Files. An individual\rquote s claim of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is presumptively lost if the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents are in the possession of the corporation. Absent a substantial factua l showing supporting the motion to assert } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the presumption will be that the communications to counsel were in the course of the corporation\rquote s business rather than the individual\rquote s persona l affairs, or that } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was waived by disclosure to third parties, other employees of the corporation. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum ( } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986140583&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 a Corporate Grand Jury Witness and \u8220\'3fJohn Doe\u8221\'3f v. United States ), 798 F.2d 32 (2d Cir. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987100729&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Consolidated Litigation concerning International Harvester, 666 F. Supp. 1 148 (N.D. Ill. 1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , held that allowing an adversary to inspect a large collection of documents and waiting until the requests for copying before asserting } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 constitutes waiver. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 8. Implications of Use of Experts to Evaluate Information or to Assist Counsel. If the information that a client needs to give to its attorney is technical, is the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 waived by the processing and summarization of that information by an outside ex pert? The rule is that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is not waived if the expert is engaged by the lawyer to assist him. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1961115168&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1961) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Friendly, C.J.) (Accountant employed by tax law firm to assist firm in underst anding client\rquote s conversations does not waive } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Accountant is considered equivalent to a translator); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975111718&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1045" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Alvarez, 519 F.2d 1036, 1045-46 (3d Cir. 1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&pubNum=780&cite=429US855&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&t ransitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 429 U.S. 855 (1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Psychiatrist assisting in preparation of insanity defense); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1972108593&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_144" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Cote, 456 F.2d 142, 144 (8th Cir. 1972) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Accountant assists in attorney\rquote s advice to client concerning filing of amended tax return); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1963115801&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1

.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_462" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Judson, 322 F.2d 460, 462-63 (9th Cir. 1963) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Accountant prepares statement of client\rquote s net worth at request of attor ney). But cf. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982117558&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re John Doe Corp. v. United States, 675 F.2d 482 (2d Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is waived by disclosure of an internal investigative report and legal opinion t o the company\rquote s outside auditor and to counsel for the company\rquote s a uditors engaged in an offering of the company\rquote s securities notwithstandin g the important commercial purpose of such } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_188_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_188_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *188 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 disclosure). The opinion was itself found to be part of the conspiracy to conce al the ongoing } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 activity -- bribery of a public official. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981138946&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Eglin Fed. Credit Union v. Cantor, Fitzgerald Sec. Corp., 91 F.R.D. 414 (N.D. Ga . 1981)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (distinguishing between a lawyer\rquote s use of accountants and investigators to help his work in developing legal advice, and accountants and investigators w ho perform usual functions for management. If they hear or receive the lawyer\rq uote s advice in that latter capacity, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is waived). See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984108813&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Bein, 728 F.2d 107 (2d Cir. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , holding that } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is lost where the client reviews with his accountant the advice they both heard from the client\rquote s attorney. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court held that it does not recognize an accountant-client } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , and the accountant, while he may assist at the time the attorney delivers advi ce without waiving } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , destroys } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 if he afterwards explains or repeats the advice in a separate conversation with the client. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Only communications between a client and attorney are protected by the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , not discussions with non lawyers concerning the same subject matter. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984108813&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_113" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 728 F.2d at 113 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 9. Criticism. The decision does not appear sound. Advice on a complicated matter -- the case involved the presence or absence of distinctions between deferred d elivery and commodity option contracts -- often requires deliberation and commen t, with technicians other than lawyers present at the counseling table. Complica ted commercial and corporate decisions require interplay among investment banker s, financial advisers, bankers accountants and other experts. If the discussion primarily involves legal advice, a good argument exists, it would seem, to the e xtent } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege

} } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is confined to that specific advice. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 10. Additional Instances of Employment Experts. The right of a witness to be acc ompanied by counsel in an SEC investigation may extend to an expert who was aske d to be present in order to give technical assistance to the attorney. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985137855&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_49" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 SEC v. Whitman, 613 F. Supp. 48, 49 (D.D.C. 1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The witness was an accountant, who was being examined on the auditing and acco unting services rendered to a client. The witness was accompanied by a lawyer, a nd by an accountant who was present to provide } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_189_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_189_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *189 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 technical assistance on accounting and auditing issues. The court ruled that: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Unless the lawyer can receive substantive guidance from an expert technician . . . when he determines in his professional judgment that such assistance is essen tial, his client\rquote s absolute right to counsel during the proceedings would become substantially qualified. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980125413&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 FTC v. TRW, Inc., 628 F.2d 207 (D.C. Cir. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , defendant, in anticipation of an FTC documentary subpoena, engaged a company t o prepare a study of its complex computerized credit reporting system. The outsi

de company was to report to counsel to enable counsel to advise the client on th e status of its procedures under the Fair Credit Reporting Act -- matters that w ere to be the subject of the FTC Investigation. The question at issue was whethe r the report of the outside company would be protected by the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The Court of Appeals, reciting the precedents stated above, and approving them as \u8220\'3fnecessary to preserve the effectiveness of counsel in our legal sy stem,\u8221\'3f but concerned that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege

} } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 could \u8220\'3fengulf all manner of services performed for the lawyer that are not now, and should not be, summarily excluded from the adversary process,\u822 1\'3f and observing that the claim of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3frests on this frontier of the law, still not well defined, separating those independent outside services performed for an attorney that are discovera ble, from those that are not,\u8221\'3f } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 held that the burden was on the proponent of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to demonstrate its applicability, and that the burden was not satisfied simply by reference to the scope of the work given to the outside company that it shoul d be reporting to counsel to enable counsel to give advice. Accordingly, \u8220\ '3fwhere the absence of facts prevents a focused analysis,\u8221\'3f the court h eld that it \u8220\'3fshould be slow to define and to apply new law,\u8221\'3f a nd it affirmed the decision of the district court holding that the report of the outside company was not }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . If the defense of a case requires assistance of an accountant, it may be prefe rable that the accountant is specially retained by the lawyer, and is not the ac countant who regularly audits the client\rquote s accounts and has obligations t o make disclosure to SEC and to public. Miller, Minsker and Carr, White Collar F ocus Means Lawyer, Accountant Strain, Legal Times of Washington, Apr. 28, 1980, at 20. See } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_190_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_190_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *190 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979117499&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated July 13, 1979, 478 F. Supp. 368 (E.D. Wisc. 1979 ) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (material prepared for the attorney is protected; copies of previously-prepared schedules are not protected). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 11. Failure to Claim } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in Accordance with Required Procedures - - The failure of a party to claim } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in accordance with procedures established by the court made it improper later t

o withhold production of documents that were not protected in accordance with th ese procedures. The court had required documents as to which } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was claimed to be listed and identified and, if the claim of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was contested, to be submitted to a special master. Defendant failed to comply with that procedure, and was barred from later claiming } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Defendant was also sanctioned for failure to make production of these, and oth er, documents. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981142415&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Litton Systems, Inc. v. AT&T, 91 F.R.D. 574 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983107925&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 700 F.2d 785 (2d Cir. 1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; In re The Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc., 90 Civ. 6954 (MP) (Notice and Or der, dated May 17, 1991) (outlining procedures for objecting to disclosure of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 materials and providing that \u8220\'3fFAILURE TO TIMELY OBJECT SHALL CONSTITUT E SUCH PERSON\rquote S CONSENT AND WAIVER OF ANY OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE TO AND USE BY COUNSEL OF ANY SUCH INFORMATION RELATING TO THAT PERSON\u8221\'3f (emphas is in original) and that to assert the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 such person must state so in his objection.); IV Legal Times of Washington (No. 2) June 15, 1981, at 22-23. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981145722&pubNum=661&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_661_711" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Kammerer v. Western Gear Corp., 96 Wash. 2d 416, 420, 635 P.2d 708, 711, (1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the court\rquote s decision, whether or not to grant a discovery motion, was m ade to depend on the company\rquote s having to decide, at that time, if it plan ned to call counsel as a witness. \u8220\'3f[O]ffering an attorney\rquote s test imony concerning matters learned in the course of his employment waives the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 -

} {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Furthermore, such a waiver cannot be delayed until the trial itself.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 12. Intention to Waive at Trial, and Implications for Depositions. If a party in voking the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 intends to waive it at trial, he may have to testify at depositions. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1973104135&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_186" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 International Tel & Tel. Corp. v. United Tel Co., 60 F.R.D. 177, 186 (M.D. Fla. 1973) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . And he may have to give up notes of interviews relevant to that testimony. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975129816&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 255 (1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (investigator\rquote s notes required to be produced following investigator\rqu ote s testimony at trial). Where a party ultimately intends to waive } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 at } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_191_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_191_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *191 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 trial, disclosure in advance would seem to be appropriate. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 13. Waiver is Irreversible. Once waived, the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 may not be reinstated. In re Penn Central Comm\rquote l Paper Lit\rquote n, sup ra, at 464. Further, waiver of a specific conversation waives all communications on the entire subject of the discussion. Id. at 465, n. 28, citing 8 Wigmore, E vidence \u167\'3f 2327 at 638 (3d ed. 1961); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1973110896&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Horowitz, 482 F.2d 72 (2d Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1973204048&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 414 U.S. 867 (1973) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1964111898&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_345" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Andreadis, 234 F. Supp. 341, 345 (E.D.N.Y. 1964) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See 8 Wigmore, Evidence \u167\'3f 2327 at 636 (3d ed. 1961): \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 person would seldom be found to waive, if his intention not to abandon could al one control the situation. There is always also the objective consideration that when his conduct touches a certain point of disclosure, fairness requires that his } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 shall cease whether he intended that result or not. He cannot be allowed, after disclosing as much as he pleases, to withhold the remainder. He may elect to wi thhold or to disclose, but after a certain point his election must remain final. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

But cf. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1951120531&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_77" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Magida v. Continental Can Co., 12 F.R.D. 74, 77 (S.D.N.Y. 1951) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (No intent found \u8220\'3fto reveal the whole breadth of discussions\u8221\'3f -- held, limited waiver only); IBM v. Sperry Rand Corp., supra; Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Blondis, supra. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 14. Corporate Work Product and the Aggregation of Case Reserves. While individua l case reserves created by in-house counsel are protected by the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the figures and analysis which result from the aggregation of individual cases are not. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987047149&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Simon v. G.D. Searle & Co., 816 F.2d 397 (8th Cir) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987131749&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 484 U.S. 917 (1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Searle, Searle\rquote s legal department would set a case reserve. These rese rves were then complied by the risk management department for a variety of reser ve analysis functions. In affirming the special masters ruling, the Circuit Cour t relied on the rule that \u8220\'3feven though litigation is already a prospect , there is no work product immunity for documents prepared in the regular course of business rather than for litigation.\u8221\'3f Finding that the compilation

of the aggregate reserves was \u8220\'3fmotivated by business planning purposes, including budget, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_192_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_192_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *192 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 profit and insurance considerations\u8221\'3f the court held that work product immunity was not appropriate. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 15. Corporate Analysis and } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 For Underlying Facts. A subcontractor on government contracts for sophisticated space equipment was under investigation for submitting false claims for cost re imbursements, and assigned several of its managing-employees to work with defens e counsel in attempting to prove the accuracy of its submissions. The employees had been responsible for monitoring the costs in issue while the contracts were being performed, but the records of such costs had allegedly been lost or destro yed in a fire. The employees were then subpoenaed to testify before the grand ju ry as to their knowledge of their employer\rquote s costs, and the analyses that could be made to ascertain their accuracy, and they were asked to conduct such analyses in response to questions by the prosecutor. Upon instructions by their employer, the employees refused to answer, claiming } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In re: Six Grand Jury Witnesses; United States v. John Doe, 970 F.2d 939 (2d C ir. 1992). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court of appeals held, citing Upjohn, that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 protected both the communications from the client to the attorney which provide d information and sought advice and the communication from the attorney which pr ovided the advice and disclosed the information given to him. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 However, the court held, it did not protect \u8220\'3fthe underlying information contained in the communication.\u8221\'3f (Slip op. at 113) As to the work prod uct doctrine and the zone of privacy it gave to a lawyer to think and prepare a case without fear of an adversary\rquote s intrusion, that, too, did not protect the underlying facts, even if they resided in an attorney\rquote s file. Both } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileges } }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3fare to be applied in a common sense way in light of reason and experi ence as determined on a case-by-case basis.\u8221\'3f (Slip op. at 114) Thus, de fense counsel cannot \u8220\'3fsilence all the key witnesses\u8221\'3f with rega rd to relevant technical information by engaging them to do studies of that info rmation. (Slip op. at 115) This is especially so since affidavits were submitted giving the defense perspective concerning several of the questions put by the p rosecutor; once defense counsel\rquote s requests for information are answered, the contents of that information are available for the prosecution. (Citing Unit ed States v. Nobles, 492 U.S. 225, 238 (1975)). As long as the witnesses are not asked about any aspect of communication which might have been had with } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_193_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_193_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *193 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 defense counsel, the government may inquire about the underlying information, e ven if the information was developed in anticipation of litigation. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Defense counsel argued that the witnesses\rquote knowledge had been developed, not by their reviews of data existing during their employment, but by the judgme nts, opinions, inferences and impressions developed from their collaboration wit h defense counsel. Experience teaches that it is not easy to demonstrate that di stinction. The case illustrates the value of using independent experts to assist defense counsel to prepare for litigation. Otherwise, there is no practical way to separate that which counsel and witnesses develop through their collaboratio n, and that which witnesses may know, or derive, from the information gathered f rom their employment. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 For an analysis of means of preserving the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 for attorney investigations, see Jonathan Liebman and Joel Cohen, Outside Couns el: Can A Prosecutor Invade A Lawyer\rquote s Investigation?, N.Y.L.J., Jan. 8, 1993 at 1. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

C. Inadvertent and Unavoidable Breaches of Confidentialities. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. General. Courts have sometimes excused inadvertent breaches of confidentialit y by attorneys. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1972113381&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 471 F.2d 507 (2d Cir. 19 72) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , vacated en banc on jurisdictional grounds, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1973110402&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 480 F.2d 293 (2d Cir. 1973) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974241590&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 416 U.S. 980 (1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (massive production in a related case on accelerated schedule imposed by court under specific ruling that } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was not waived -- held, by subsequent court, no waiver). Because of IBM\rquote s very substantial efforts to screen a mass of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents before producing them, the court held that no waiver resulted from th e inadvertent production of documents that slipped through. }

{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978103222&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Transamerica Computer Co. v. IBM, 573 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Formal stipulations protecting against waiver are encouraged in complex cases. See Manual for Complex Litigation, Second 21.432 (1985). Professor Richard L. M arcus argues in favor of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , and against liberal rules of waiver, generally, and not only in these massive discovery cases, in the interests of economy in pre trial proceedings, facilitat ing preparation of witnesses and reducing motion practice over discovery dispute s. Marcus, The } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0101991801&pubNum=1192&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Perils of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 : Waiver and the Litigator, 84 Mich. L. Rev. 1605 (1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . An informer, however, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_194_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_194_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *194 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 can disclose information thought to be confidential by attorney and client, and the government is free to follow all leads arising from the communication. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979140180&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Bonnell, 483 F. Supp. 1070 (D. Minn. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

(newsman, working part-time as a messenger, photocopies confidential communicat ion in a bathroom and discloses it to prosecutor). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Documents otherwise } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , and uncovered by a third party from discarded trash, may be introduced into ev idence. Although the relevant question is generally the client\rquote s intentio n to preserve confidentiality, and such intent existed, the client failed suffic iently to guard confidentiality and lost the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981137372&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Suburban Sew \lquote N Sweep, Inc. v. Swiss-Bernina, Inc., 91 F.R.D. 254 (N.D. I ll. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In testing the intention to maintain confidentiality, the court ruled, the way the parties \u8220\'3fmanifested\u8221\'3f their intention \u8220\'3fby the pre cautions they took\u8221\'3f was controlling. If the documents in question had b een taken from \u8220\'3fsafekeeping\u8221\'3f, where the client was \u8220\'3fd iligently trying to safeguard their confidentiality,\u8221\'3f the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 would have been upheld because of the effect on the policy of promoting \u8220\ '3funinhibited consultation between attorney and client.\u8221\'3f However, \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The likelihood that third parties will have the interest, ingenuity, perseveranc e and stamina . . . to search through mounds of garbage in hopes of finding } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communications . . . is not sufficiently great to deter open } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communications. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hence, the court ruled, there was not a sufficient policy to deter such intrusio ns to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . But another court ruled different where shredded papers were pieced together, for people do not expect snoops and scavengers to retrieve and reconstruct paper s owner has taken pains to destroy. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991181404&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Scott, 776 F.Supp. 629 (D. Mass. 1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

(See, In re: } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989095873&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_980" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Sealed Case, 877 F.2d 976, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3f[I]f a client wishes to preserve the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , it must treat the confidentiality of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communications like jewels -- if not crown jewels.\u8221\'3f Court leaves open how it would decide if } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 extends to unforeseeable appropriations of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 material.) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Inadvertent Production of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Documents. Will the inadvertent production of a document destroy the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and/or work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ? Current case law provides no } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_195_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_195_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *195 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 bright line test to resolve this issue; however, courts appear to apply two dif ferent standards depending on the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 involved. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985121076&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Gulf Oil Corp., 760 F.2d 292 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 a) } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The traditional view of courts is that an inadvertent disclosure of a document containing } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information will waive the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987157388&pubNum=602&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Servotronics, Inc., 132 A.D.2d 392, 398, 52 2 N.Y.S.2d 999 (4th Dep\rquote t 1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3fthe client and attorney possess sufficient means to preserve the sec recy of a communication and ... disclosure makes achievement of the benefits of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 impossible.\u8221\'3f). The court in rejecting the traditional approach found t hat \u8220\'3f[w]hile reasonable precautions might be required to promote approp riate standards of care in document production, there is no reason to apply the harsh traditional approach to a litigant who inadvertently discloses a document, at least prior to the time that remedying an accidental production would cause the adversary any prejudice.\u8221\'3f Id. Several other courts have also abando ned the traditional view. The holdings appear to be based on the general princip le underlying the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 : the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 belongs to the client and it is his to waive or retain. \u8220\'3f[I]f we are s erious about the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and its relation to the client\rquote s welfare, we should require more than ne gligence by counsel before the client can be deemed to have given up the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 .\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982106678&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_955" }{\fldr slt

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Mendenhall v. Barber-Greene Co., 531 F. Supp. 951, 955 (N.D. Ill. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987119707&pubNum=595&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Sterling v. Keidan, 162 Mich. App. 88, 412 N.W.2d 255 (1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Many courts apply a balancing test to determine if there is a waiver. Factors courts have considered are: (1) the reasonableness of the precautions to prevent inadvertent disclosure; (2) the time taken to rectify the error; (3) the scope of the discovery; (4) the extent of the disclosure; and (5) the overriding issue of fairness. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990170612&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Min. Co., 133 F.R.D. 1 71 (D.Kan. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (inadvertent disclosure of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents did not amount to waiver of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The plaintiff took adequate, although not perfect, precautions to prevent inad vertent disclosure, it sought to rectify the error within two weeks of discoveri ng the inadvertent production, and only three } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents were disclosed in the course of discovery of more than 200,000 docume nts.); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985106253&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 104 F.R.D. 103 (S.D.N.Y. 19 85) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986144395&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 799 F.2d 867 (1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; see } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_196_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_196_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *196 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987065244&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Parkway Gallery Furniture, Inc. v. Kittinger/Pennsylvania House Group, Inc., 116 F.R.D. 46 (M.D.N.C. 1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d, }

{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989099910&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 878 F.2d 801 (2d Cir. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 From the cases above, it appears that the trend is against the inadvertent waive r of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986112696&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Garvey, 109 F.R.D. 323 (N.D. Ca. 1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (waiver need not be intentional); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987114193&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Baxter Travenol Labs, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 117 F.R.D. 119 (N.D. Ill. 1987)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 (Delay in } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 asserting \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to recover inadvertently produced documents may constitute waiver of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988077255&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 International Digital Sys. Corp. v. Digital Equip. Corp., 120 F.R.D. 445 (D. Mas s. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (analyzing three lines of cases dealing with production in response to Rule 34 Requests for Production: those excusing inadvertent disclosure; those holding th at waiver is the consequence; and those evaluating the degree of caution that wa s exercised. Court holds that disclosure, inadvertent or not, causes waiver.); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988077255&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 International Digital Systems Corp. v. Digital Equipment Corp., 120 F.R.D. 445 ( D.Mass. 1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (magistrate rules that since confidentiality has been lost, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 has been lost); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989097263&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, Inc., 126 F.R.D. 58 (D.Or. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (government\rquote s failure to monitor production waives } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 b) Work Product. The work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 provides a qualified protection against the disclosure of any materials prepare d either by a party or his agents or counsel, and in anticipation of litigation. Morgan Guar. Trust Co. v. George Washington Corp., No. 77-219, slip op. (D. Del . Dec. 11, 1978). Since the purpose of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is to prevent discovery of the document once an adversary sees the document the issue of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege\rquote s } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 applicability is moot. Id. Once a document is disclosed to the other side -- no matter how it is done -- most courts will hold that there is a waiver of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984139814&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_63" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Chubb Integrated Systems, Ltd. v. Nat\rquote l Bank of Washington, 103 F.R.D. 52 , 63 (D. Col. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . (A document is disclosed where an adversary learns the gist of the document\rq uote s contents.) Some courts, however, continue to apply a balancing test. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985106253&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_103" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., 104 F.R.D. at 103 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 One court limited the effect of the waiver by ruling that the general rule that a disclosure waives not only the specific communication but also the subject mat ter of it in other communications is } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_197_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_197_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *197 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 not appropriate in a case of inadvertent disclosure. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987065244&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_46" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Parkway Gallery Furniture, Inc., 116 F.R.D. at 46. }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 From the cases, it appears the trends are to favor discovery over enforcing the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 but, to require more than an inadvertent disclosure to find a waiver of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 . \par \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Agreements Between Parties. In large cases, parties sometimes agree that prod uction of documents shall go forward under a protective order, with leave to the parties subsequently to determine, and to withdraw from the production, the doc uments they consider to be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Permian Corp. v. United States, No. 79-2098, slip. op. (D.D.C. May 15, 1980), 1980 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 97,523, aff\rquote d in part, rev\ rquote d in part, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981150865&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 665 F.2d 1214 (D.C. Cir. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , was such a case. In the context of tender offer litigation, the party wishing to tender for offers produced documents under such a discovery arrangement. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The problem of the case was that the Staff of the SEC insisted that they, also, should receive the entire production, including the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents, and had promised not to release the documents to third parties witho ut notice to the producing party. The producing party agreed, in order to induce the SEC to review a registration statement. The Department of Energy then enter ed the picture and asked the SEC for the same documents. The district court rule d that the documents could not be given to the DOE in face of objections by the producing party, that there had not been a waiver of either the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 or the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 since the surrender to the SEC was not voluntary, and the DOE could subpoena th e underlying records if it wished to procure the relevant information. The Court of Appeals reversed, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981150865&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 665 F.2d 1214 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Any agreement not to waive the attorney work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 must be in place before the disclosure of the documents or it is not valid. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992042574&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Khandji v. Keystone Resorts Mgmt., Inc., 140 F.R.D. 697 (D. Colo. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the court ruled that a voluntary disclosure of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents waived the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 but that a party could be protected where an agreement not to disclose was in p lace prior to the disclosure. Plaintiff\rquote s attorney sent to defendant\rquo te s attorney a settlement brochure without prior knowledge of the defense attor ney. Counsel for plaintiff included a letter stating that no copies of the broch ure should be made and that the brochure should be returned by a set date. The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_198_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_198_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *198 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Court found that waiver of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 occurred regardless of any agreement as to the use of the documents. However, t he Court recognized that an agreement can be binding as a contract between the p arties. Here no contract had been formed and, therefore, defense counsel was fre e to use the disclosed information. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. Form of Such Agreement. Following is a sample form: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 WHEREAS, the Producing Parties are or may be in possession of certain documents and information as to which the Producing Parties have claims of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , work product and other applicable } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 or protections from disclosures which they may assert in connection with docume nt requests or subpoenas; \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 WHEREAS, in the interest of judicial economy and in an effort not to impede the expeditious resolution of this litigation, the Producing Parties have agreed to the production of certain documents provided that such production shall not be a rgued to constitute, and shall not constitute, a waiver of any } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 the Producing Parties have or may have as to [these or] any other matters, incl uding, but not limited to, other documents or information relating to the same s ubject matter as that of the documents which have been or may be produced by the Producing Parties; \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li540 \b0 \qj

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. The production to plaintiffs or their counsel in this litigation by any Produ cing Party of any documents or information does not constitute and shall not be argued to constitute a waiver by the Producing Parties, or any of them, of any } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 or protection they or it may assert in regard to [these documents or informatio n, or] any other matters, including, but not limited to, an assertion of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 or other protection from disclosure with respect to any other documents or info rmation elating to the subject matter of the documents or information produced t o plaintiffs or } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_199_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_199_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *199 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 their counsel. Further such production shall not in any way prejudice the right s of the Producing Parties, or any of them, to assert all applicable } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and protections with respect to any other documents or information requested by plaintiffs in the captioned litigation now or in the future. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. Right of Counsel to Waive Where Client Disabled or Dead. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Ethical considerations have risen as to whether attorneys may testify as to inte

r vivos dispositions of clients who, before dying of AIDS, created instruments t ransferring property to lovers. May executors of the deceased\rquote s estate, w ho sue to void the transfer, bar the lawyer\rquote s testimony? Are the conversa tions between the deceased client and the attorney confidences and secrets, Code . Prof. Respon. Canon 4, on matters the client wished to be divulged to carry ou t his intent to benefit the transferee? \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Historians and lawyers have also debated the scope of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Should it exist forever or should it be limited by a statute of limitations? T he issue is far from resolved. See Kaplan A Matter of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Truth } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 or Confidences: Does } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 Client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Outweigh Demands of History. 10 National Law Journal 43 at 36, col. 1. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 X. \u8220\'3fCommon Interest\u8221\'3f Exceptions to Waiver. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Where a common interest exists in matters pertaining to multiple parties, a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 exists for communications between the parties and between the parties attorneys . See, e.g. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1942117710&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Baldwin v. Commissioner, 125 F.2d 812 (9th Cir. 1942) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Client\rquote s communications to attorney in presence of jointly employing cl ient - held } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged

} } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1964113835&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1964) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; (lawyers\rquote exchange of interview notes of grand jury testimony-- held, n o waiver). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 However, to maintain the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , communications must be in the common interest of all parties. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976102535&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 70 F.R.D. 508 (D. Conn.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , appeal dismissed, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976146265&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 534 F.2d 1031 (2d Cir. 1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (communications between lawyer and one joint venturer held, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 waived, when information communicated was adverse to the other joint venturers)

. Cf. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_200_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_200_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *200 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978121495&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Landof, 591 F.2d 36 (9th Cir. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (presence of attorney for an interested non-defendant breaches confidentiality and causes loss of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 also extends to communications with agents of the attorney. Information furnish ed by a defendant to an accountant hired by codefendant\rquote s attorney to ser ve joint interests of the defendants was protected by the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The information was imparted in confidence for the ultimate purpose of assisti ng attorneys who had agreed upon and undertaken a joint strategy of representati on. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990015399&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_244" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 244 (2d Cir. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , on rem. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990089080&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 738 F.Supp. 654 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991028151&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 924 F.2d 443 (2d Cir. 1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979112438&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (en banc), } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 cert. denied,

} {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&pubNum=780&cite=444US833&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&t ransitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 444 U.S. 833 (1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (defendant may not impeach former co-defendant who testified for prosecution by asking about statements given to investigator of attorney for defendant). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 can begin prior to the time that the parties formally became co-defendants. And the fact that joint representation ultimately became impossible does not recast the initial meeting or remove the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In pre-representation meetings, when more than one person seeks communication with an attorney, the existence of matters of common interest should be presumed . Thus, a member of the initial group which consulted the attorney was entitled to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 with regard to those conversations. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992084486&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_70" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Auclair, 961 F.2d 65, 70 (5th Cir. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \u8220\'3fTo hold otherwise would present a conundrum whose only acceptable re solution would be that a lawyer may never meet with more than one potential clie nt for fear that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 would be destroyed as to all.\u8221\'3f Id. See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984107712&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Davis v. Costa-Gavras, 580 F. Supp. 1082 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) }}}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (disclosure to potential co-defendant\rquote s lawyer-held, no waiver); and pro posed F.R.E. 503(b)(3). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. Common Interest and Work Product. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 It is not a waiver of the \u8220\'3fwork product\u8221\'3f } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 if the attorney who prepares the work product shares it with the attorney for a nother having a common interest, even though not a party to the same suit. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980139593&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. AT&T (MCI Communications Corp.), 642 F.2d 1285 (D.C. Cir. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . MCI had prepared a \u8220\'3fdata base\u8221\'3f in its litigation with AT&T. The data base consisted of computerized abstracts of documents, depositions, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_201_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_201_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *201 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 transcripts and exhibits discovered from AT&T. At the request of the Government , in connection with the Government\rquote s suit against AT&T, this data base w as given by MCI\rquote s lawyers to the Government lawyers under an order which prohibited the Government from using the materials for any purpose other than th e case against AT&T. AT&T then moved for discovery of the data base. The distric t court granted the motion but, on petition for mandamus to the Court of Appeals , MCI was permitted to intervene to assert its claim of work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

, and the decision by the district court was reversed. Although, the Court ruled , \u8220\'3fthe } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 truth } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 -finding process might be further enhanced in the short term\u8221\'3f by giving access to the data base to AT&T, \u8220\'3ftrial preparation and vigorous advoc acy\u8221\'3f would be discouraged, as would the policy encouraging cooperation between private anti-trust plaintiffs and the Government. The Court emphasized t hat the data base was probably not admissible evidence, and it held that it shou ld not be any more discoverable from the Government than from any private party. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Mergers. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The common interest exception has been applied to the sharing of litigation anal yses between counsel for putative merger partners. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985121076&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Gulf Oil Corp., 760 F.2d 292 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , counsel for Cities Service Oil & Gas Corp. evaluated that company\rquote s dec laratory judgment action against the Department of Energy by which it sought to bar the agency from proceeding to recover alleged overcharges, and gave its eval uation to counsel for Gulf Oil Corp. in connection with merger negotiations bein g carried on between the two companies. The declaratory judgment action was dism issed, and the merger negotiations were aborted. The agency then subpoenaed the copy of counsel\rquote s evaluation in the possession, not of Cities Service, bu t of Gulf Oil. On Cities Service intervention, the court upheld a work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Citing } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980139593&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. AT&T, 642 F.2d 1285 (D.C. Cir. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the Court of Appeals held that there were \u8220\'3fcommon interests\u8221\'3f ; the two companies were \u8220\'3fobviously not adversaries at the time of the disclosure,\u8221\'3f and Gulf Oil \u8220\'3fhad a legitimate, nonadversarial in terest in reviewing Cities\rquote attorneys\rquote work product.\u8221\'3f See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986101403&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Tronitech v. NRC Corp., 108 F.R.D. 655 (S.D. Ind. 1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . But not all jurisdictions hold to this view. In Jedwab v. MGM Grand Hotels, In c., No. 8077, slip op. (Del. Ch. Mar. 20, 1986), counsel to parties negotiating a merger exchanged evaluations of pending lawsuits, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_202_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_202_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *202 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents that otherwise would be considered } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 as the repository of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communications. The exchanges were held to waive the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , for there is no \u8220\'3fcommon interest\u8221\'3f between the negotiating pa rties. And such exchanges do not qualify as work product, since they were made t

o facilitate negotiations of merger, not to create a record or develop litigatio n strategy. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Sharing Investigative Information. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The sharing of investigative information with a U.S. Attorney in order to intere st the U.S. Attorney to prosecute does not waive \u8220\'3fwork product\u8221\'3 f against the target of that investigation. Shulton Inc. v. Optel Corp., Civ. No . 85-2925, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10097 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 1987). The disclosure did not substantially increase the likelihood that the contents of the investigativ e file would reach the defendant. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. Insurance. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Under \u8220\'3fcommon interest\u8221\'3f doctrine, communications between an in sured and its attorney connected with the defense of underlying litigation are n ormally not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 vis-a-vis the insured\rquote s carrier in subsequent litigation between them. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987025780&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_1365" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Independent Petrochem. Corp. v. Aetna Gas & Sur., 654 F.Supp. 1334, 1365 (D.D.C. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The documents in question, while \u8220\'3f } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 from discovery by party opponents in the underlying claims, [] cannot be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 from carriers obligated to shoulder the burden of defending against those claim s.\u8221\'3f Id. See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975104854&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Truck Ins. Exch. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 66 F.R.D. 129 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (E.D. Pa. 1975) (insurance company which settled with plaintiff and sues second insurance company for indemnification may not withhold communications with, or work product of, its attorney, including legal opinions of its attorney). Presum ably, the insurance carrier is subrogated to the position of the insured and sta nds in his shoes for the purpose of claiming, or waiving, the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 E. Inter-Defendant Communications. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Although the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is not applicable when one defendant sues another, since between them communica

tions are not regarded as confidential, the government may not stand in the shoe s of those clients to require disclosure. Inter-defendant communications seeking legal advice and the advancement of a common defense are } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , as } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_203_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_203_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *203 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 long as no neutral person hears the communication, and even if the common defen se is made up of \u8220\'3fsome unsteady bedfellows\u8221\'3f or the communicato r foresees and is willing to risk a subsequent action against him by the party r eceiving the communication. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975108622&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 406 F. Supp. 381 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . One of the parties to the conversations settled with the government, explicitl y waived the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege }

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and brought a civil suit against the other defendants. District Judge Connor he ld that although the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 might not exist in the civil suit, it would be upheld vis-a-vis the government. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 [T]o allow such disclosure [in the third-party, or government, proceeding] would so further erode the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege\rquote s } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 protection as to reduce joint defense to an improbable alternative. How well co uld a joint defense proceed in the light of each co-defendant\rquote s knowledge that any one of the others might trade resultant disclosures to third parties a s the price of his own exoneration or for the satisfaction of a personal animus? \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 However, in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985156008&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_592" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Testimony of Attorney X, 621 F. Supp. 590, 592 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , an attorney, having debriefed counsel for a codefendant and having passed the information to his own client, was required to testify, for the \u8220\'3fjoint communication defense,\u8221\'3f it was held, does not protect such non-confiden tial information. And communications among co-plaintiffs are similarly not } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged }

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , even if the communications simply pass along advice from counsel. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985129836&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Schachar v. American Academy of Ophthalmology, Inc., 106 F.R.D. 187 (N.D. Ill. 1 985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 F. Sixth Amendment. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Apart from the \u8220\'3fcommon defense\u8221\'3f exception to waiver, discussed above, Sixth Amendment rights may also be implicated. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985159881&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 (1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , two defendants were indicated of several thefts. One of the defendants pled gu ilty and confessed to a joint plan to commit murder. The prosecutor placed a hid den wire on this defendant and thus, obtained incriminating statements from the remaining defendant as to both the thefts and the planned murder. By a 5-4 decis ion, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment had been violated and that the incriminating statements as to } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_204_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_204_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *204 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 the thefts could not be used. \u8220\'3fThe assistance of counsel,\u8221\'3f th e Supreme Court ruled, \u8220\'3fcannot be limited to participation in a trial,\ u8221\'3f for the period before trial \u8220\'3fmay be more damaging than denial of counsel during the trial itself.\u8221\'3f Id. at 484. The Sixth Amendment i mposes on the prosecutor \u8220\'3fan affirmative obligation not to act in a man ner that circumvents and thereby dilutes the protection afforded by the right to counsel,\u8221\'3f Id. at 485, for the accused has the \u8220\'3fright to rely on counsel as a \lquote medium\rquote between him and the State.\u8221\'3f Id. at 487. \par

} } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981127808&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_646" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 U.S. v. Melvin, 650 F.2d 641, 646 (5th Cir. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3f[T]here is no government intrusion into the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 relationship in violation of the Sixth Amendment when a confidential informant attends a meeting of other defendants and their counsel, at the request of other defendants and their attorneys, under such circumstances that the informant cou ld not reasonably refuse to attend without jeopardizing his undercover status.\u 8221\'3f). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 XI. Issues of Work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

A. Overcoming the Work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Judge Pierre Level of the Southern District of New York in Pine Top Insurance, C o. Ltd. v. Alexander & Alexander Services, Inc., 85 Civ. 9860, 1991 U.S. Dist. L EXIS 14610 (S.D.N.Y. October 7, 1991) found auditor\rquote s reports prepared at the direction of an attorney in anticipation of litigation protected by the wor k product doctrine. He ruled, however, that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was overcome by a substantial need for the auditor\rquote s reports. The centra l question of the litigation concerned the extent of defendant\rquote s knowledg e of another\rquote s fraud. \u8220\'3fOnly the reports themselves, not a second audit, will reveal what (defendant) learned in early 1983,\u8221\'3f the releva nt period. Thus he granted plaintiff\rquote s motion to compel production of the auditors\rquote reports prepared for defendant. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The judge related the standard for overcoming the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 as follows: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The work product immunity can be overcome by a showing of substantial need and u ndue hardship by the party seeking discovery. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The work product }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is ordinarily not overcome where the information can be obtained by deposing wi tnesses. The compelling party must show that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_205_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_205_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *205 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 witnesses are no longer available, can only be reached with difficulty, or are unable to recollect. The undue hardship test is generally not satisfied merely b y the expense of obtaining the materials. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992169869&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court recognized that the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 applied to the notes of an insurance company\rquote s claims adjustor when thos e notes were prepared for trial. The court then found that in the instant case t he } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 would not apply because \u8220\'3fopinion work product may be discovered and ad mitted when mental impressions are at issue in a case and the need for the mater ial is compelling.\u8221\'3f

} {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992169869&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id., at 577 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The case involved a claim of bad faith settlement of an insurance claim. The n otes were evidence of the thoughts of the company as to settlement of the claim and, as such, were discoverable. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Loss of Work Product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Developed in a Prior Case. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Some courts have held that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is lost once the case ends, and the work product } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 extends only to materials prepared in anticipation of the very suit before the court. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974104677&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_178" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

United States v. IBM, 66 F.R.D. 154, 178 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1970112416&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_119" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Honeywell, Inc. v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 50 F.R.D. 117, 119 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (M.D. Pa. 1970); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1962112246&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_410" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 207 F. Supp. 407, 410 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (M.D. Pa. 1962); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1960101715&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_415" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Gulf Construction Co. v. St. Joe Paper Co., 24 F.R.D. 411, 415 (S.D. Tex. 1959) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1955120996&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_537" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Tobacco & Allied Stocks, Inc. v. Transamerica Corp., 16 F.R.D. 534, 537 (D. Del. 1954) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Some cases extend a perpetual protection for work product beyond the terminat ion of the litigation for which the documents were prepared and reaching all sub sequent suits. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977123350&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_334" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Murphy, 560 F.2d 326, 334 (8th Cir. 1977)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1973112259&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_483" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F.2d 480, 483-84 (4th C ir. 1973) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976126072&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_468" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. O.K. Tire and Rubber Co., 71 F.R.D. 465, 468, n. 7 (D. Idaho 19 76) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974104620&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_43" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Burlington Industries v. Exxon Corp., 65 F.R.D. 26, 43 (D. Md. 1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. A third approach is to decide on a case by case basis, depending on the relat ionship between the cases. See 4 J. Moore, Federal Practice \u167\'3f 26.64[2] a t 26-415 (2d ed. 1979); } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_206_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_206_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *206 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0104842271&pubNum=0102228&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=c blt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure \u167\'3f 2024 at 201 (1 970) }}}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1967117652&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_557" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Republic Gear Co. v. Borg-Warner Corp., 381 F.2d 551, 557 (2d Cir. 1967) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977125628&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_153" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Hercules, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 434 F. Supp. 136, 153 (D. Del. 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1973104029&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_138" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Midland Investment Co. v. Van Alstyne, Noel & Co., 59 F.R.D. 134, 138 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. The Supreme Court in an FOIA case has stated, in dicta, that \u8220\'3f[u]nde r a literal reading of } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCPR26&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rule 26(b)(3) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the work product of agency attorneys would not be subject to discovery in subs equent litigation unless there was a showing of need. . .\u8221\'3f FTC v. Groli er, Inc., 1983-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) (June 6, 1983). In that case, the Court was de termining the scope of Exemption 5 of the FOIA, which exempts from disclosure in ter-agency or intra-agency memoranda which \u8220\'3fwould not be available by l aw to a party . . . in litigation with the agency.\u8221\'3f Although the Court discusses the wording of } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCPR26&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D

ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rule 26(b)(3) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , it only does so in the context of deciding what the Congress intended when it enacted Exemption \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 5. It is therefore not clear that Grolier has changed the law with respect to th e production of work product prepared for previous actions. The information obta inable through discovery is generally more extensive than that obtainable pursua nt to FOIA, [see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984133671&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Friedman v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., 738 F.2d 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; J. Loran, Information Disclosure in Civil Actions: The Freedom of Information Act and Federal Discovery Rules, 49 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 843, 849 (1981)], and per haps a proper discovery request may gain the work product of a prior case. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 6. A law firm which withdraws from representation because of a conflict may turn over its work product to substitute counsel. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986145031&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Behunin v. Dow Chem. Co., 642 F. Supp. 870 (D. Colo. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (if the harm to opposing counsel is less than the harm to the party for whom re presentation was substituted, the transfer will be permitted). In this case, the court did not feel that the denial of [the passage of] the work product would f urther the vindication of the Bar\rquote s integrity; and, the prevention of the abuse of any client } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 was accomplished by withdrawal. \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 7. Cases are divided whether camera surveillance taken to impeach personal injur y plaintiffs are protected from discovery; they are prepared for litigation, but are subject to abuse and require verification. Compare } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_207_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_207_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *207 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992027932&pubNum=602&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Careccia v. Enstrom, 174 A.D. 2d 48, 578 N.Y.S. 2d 678 (3rd Dep\rquote t 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , with } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990050456&pubNum=602&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Marte v. Hickok Mfg. Co., 154 A.D. 2d 173, 552 N.Y.S. 2d 297 (1st Dep\rquote t 1 990) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 XII. Procedure to Resolve Contested Claims of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. In Camera Inspection. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

In camera inspection of documents may be required to resolve claims of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \u8220\'3fThe } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is not self operative . . .[;] the court is entitled to an opportunity to make inspection of any such documents [claimed to be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ] in order to satisfy itself that they are in fact } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . . . . [T]he individual citizen may not resolve himself into a court, and hims elf determine [a question of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 as to] the contents of books and papers required to be produced.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975107594&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_367" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Grand Jury Inves., 401 F. Supp. 361, 367

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (W.D. Pa. 1975). See, e.g., } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1971104129&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_46" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Jack Winter, Inc., v. Koratron Co., 54 F.R.D. 44, 46 (N.D. Cal. 1971) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1962113103&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_743" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 211 F. Supp. 736, 743 (N.D. Ill. 1962) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied sub nom. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1963208037&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Illinois v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 375 U.S. 834 (1963) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992156126&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_129" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Clarke v. American Commerce Nat. Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (A district court can require a party claiming } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to supply the court with a line-by-line justification for requested redactions of time records.); see especially } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975106976&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., 397 F. Supp. 1146 (D.S.C. 1974)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (elaborate in camera proceeding described, involving court-prepared index and a bstract edited by party asserting } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to guard against undue disclosure, followed by argument of counsel, all to insu re that party requesting production \u8220\'3fhad at least a realistic conceptio n of what each document contained and [was] not foreclosed from an opportunity t o argue intelligently,\u8221\'3f but without \u8220\'3funwarranted disclosure of the truly } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 subject matter.\u8221\'3f). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In the above cases, the party asserting the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 filed memoranda and affidavits explaining the documents. The submissions were t aken in camera. Cf. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992155690&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_97" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 97 (3rd Cir. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , (\u8220\'3fwhere a fact-finder undertakes to weigh evidence in a proceeding se eking an exception to the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege

} } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the party invoking the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 has the absolute right to be heard by testimony and argument.\u8221\'3f) What s hould be the role of the party opposing the assertion of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ? How affected may the judge become by inspecting documents that are held not ad missible in evidence? In } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_208_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_208_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *208 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980117584&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Special September 1978 Grand Jury (II) (Appeal of USA), 640 F.2d 49 (7th C ir. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the government made a prima facie showing of a client\rquote s continuing wron g by an in camera submission which the District Court found to be legally insuff icient and which the Court of Appeals accepted. The consequence was to do away w ith both the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and \u8220\'3fwork product\u8221\'3f } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileges } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Can defense counsel overcome such a handicap? \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Abstracts. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Consider: The Court of Appeals in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974113239&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_737" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 509 F.2d 730, 737 (4th Cir. 1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975241273&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 420 U.S. 997 (1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 suggested that the district court on remand could order the party asserting } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege }

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to abstract the documents withheld from production, or itself abstract the docu ments. Subsequently, the party asserting } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 moved to disqualify the district judge, asserting, among other reasons, that hi s familiarity with } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 material gave an appearance of bias. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977124589&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_250" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Mead Data Central, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 250 ( D.C. Cir. 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 recognized, in an FOIA case, that courts cannot do as good a job as the party s eeking discovery and imposed a burden of a \u8220\'3frelatively detailed justifi cation\u8221\'3f specific to the withheld document on the party withholding prod uction. Cf. Prop. Fed. R. Evid. 509 (executive } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , adversary has right to inspect the claim). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Pre-Adjudication Review By Opposing Counsel \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 can be compromised by a procedure that requires the party claiming } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to allow adversary counsel to perform even a cursory, \u8220\'3feyes only\u8221 \'3f inspection prior to adjudication by the court on the issue of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992093260&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Chase Manhattan Bank v. Turner & Newall, 964 F.2d 159 (2d Cir. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Over objection by the producing party, the Magistrate Judge ordered that, exce pt for a group of the most sensitive documents, the thousands of documents at is sue be given to adversary counsel for initial review, for the purpose of reducin g the field of documents that would be contested. The inspecting counsel represe nted that they would not take notes or study the documents or study the informat ion contained therein. The court of appeals dismissed the interlocutory appeal f or lack of jurisdiction, treated the notice of appeal as a writ of mandamus, and reversed, holding that } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 would be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_209_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_209_1}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *209 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 compromised. A review of the documents under these conditions could reveal stra tegy and evidence that cannot be \u8220\'3funlearned\u8221\'3f, and the producin g party was not required to exhibit } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 documents to adversary counsel, even for a limited, cursory inspection. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. Documents Containing } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and Non} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Material. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Courts will at times consider a document } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 if, \u8220\'3fpredominantly,\u8221\'3f the document deals with

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 matter, but an excision procedure is often also followed. It is hard to establi sh distinguishing criteria. In United States v. IBM, supra, Chief Judge Edelstei n appointed a special master to review the documents claimed to be } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and to recommend dispositions to the court. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 E. Crime or Fraud Exception. See discussion at III C, supra. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 F. Appeal Procedures. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A client whose attorney has been ordered to produce documents as to which the cl ient has a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 that would be defeated by such production may appeal the order as a final order under the doctrine of } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1918100303&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984118043&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Re Grand Jury S.D.T. dated Sept. 15, 1983, (Marc Rich & Co. A.G. v. United St ates), 731 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 at 1036 n.3, and cases cited. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 G. Mandamus. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The extraordinary writ is available to bring up a record for review \u8220\'3fwh en a discovery question is of extraordinary significance or there is extreme nee d for reversal of the district court\rquote s mandate before the case goes to ju dgment.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987147285&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Weisman, 835 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (denying mandamus); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987112488&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (granting mandamus); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1973110402&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_298" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 IBM v. United States, 480 F.2d 293, 298-99 (2d Cir. 1973) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (en banc), cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974241590&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 416 U.S. 980 (1974)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (denying mandamus). A writ will issue to review matters of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 where: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 i) an issue of importance and of first impression is raised; \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ii) the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 will be lost in the particular case if review must await a final judgment; and \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_210_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_210_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *210 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 iii) immediate resolution will avoid the development of discovery practices or doctrine undermining the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 .

\par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992093260&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_163" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Chase Manhattan Bank v. Turner & Newall, 964 F.2d 159, 163 (2nd Cir. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In the instant case, the court vacated a discovery order requiring the product ion of documents prior to a final adjudication on a claim of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court found that, under the second prong, requiring a party to produce doc uments without a judicial ruling on the merits of the claim will undermine the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Other circuits seem to be more liberal in granting mandamus. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977125046&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_599" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Diversified Ind., Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596, 599 (8th Cir. 1977) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , modified en banc, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1977125046&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 572 F.2d 606 (8th Cir. 1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ;

} {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974112972&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_479" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Sanderson v. Winner, 507 F.2d 477, 479 (10th Cir. 1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (per curiam), cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975241482&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 421 U.S. 914 (1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 XIII. Inferences Arguable to Jury. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Generally, inferences are arguable where a party, in position to give testimony relevant to an issue, fails to do so without reasonable explanation. Such an inf erence is available in New York and other state courts where testimony is held b ack because of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980113839&pubNum=605&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_605_42" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Marine Midland Bank v. John E. Russo Produce Co., 50 N.Y.2d 31, 42 (1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (in civil proceeding inference may have been drawn from assertion of self-incri mination } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege }

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ). See also Austin, The Use of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Communications for Impeachment Purposes: Part 2, N.Y.S. Bar Journal, Dec. 1977, 657, 663 (citing } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1903017983&pubNum=601&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Deutschmann v. Third Ave. Railroad Co., 87 A.D. 503, 84 N.Y.S. 887 (1st Dep\rquo te t 1903) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; 1 N.Y. Pattern Jury Instr., 1:76 (1974). Federal law is to the contrary, and t he assertion of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 may not be the subject of argument or comment. See, e.g., } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1951116014&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_101" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr., 95 F. Supp. 83, 101-2 (S.D.N.Y. 1950) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (no adverse inference from assertion of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ), appeal dismissed, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1952116020&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 197 F.2d 498 (2d Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1952202418&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 344 U.S. 878 (1952) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . 1 N.Y. Pattern Jury Insr., supra, at 76-77. The issue is particularly importan t where the party claiming } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 has the burden of proof or would otherwise naturally be expected to give testim ony on an issue. For example, the proposed New York Rules of Evidence, with resp ect to civil cases, permits \u8220\'3fcomment on or an inference from a claim of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8221\'3f as to a \u8220\'3fcommunication or matter necessary to the claim or d efense of another party.\u8221\'3f

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_211_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_211_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *211 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Proposed Code of Evidence for the State of New York, 503(b)(2). Where appropria te, the court may \u8220\'3fdismiss the claim for relief or the defense to which the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 communication would relate.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A refusal by present and former employees to answer questions because of fear of incrimination, that is, an invocation of the Fifth Amendment, can be imputed ag ainst the employer, and the jury may be asked to infer that the fact about which the questions were asked should be resolved against the employer. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983143042&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Brink\rquote s, Inc. v. City of New York, 717 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 New York City employed Brink\rquote s to collect money in parking meters. Severa l of the Brink\rquote s employees were convicted of stealing, and the Brink\rquo te s contract was canceled by the City. Brink\rquote s sued for breach of contra ct, and the City counterclaimed for breach of contract, for negligence and for p unitive damages. Brink\rquote s brought a third party complaint against the conv icted employees. A jury found against Brink\rquote s, assessed punitive damages, and gave Brink\rquote s judgment over for a lesser sum against the employees. B rink\rquote s appealed. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Second Circuit (Oakes, C.J., Cardamone concurring, Winter dissenting) affirm ed. Punitive damages, although allowed only in the context of tort actions, and not contract actions, were properly assessed here, because the presence of an ac

tion in contract does not preclude an independent action for tort. The court rul ed that New York law does not preclude the award of punitive damages where condu ct that gives rise to a contract action is also tortious. The court of appeals f ound, further, that there was adequate basis for an assessment of punitive damag es because of the inaction, notwithstanding knowledge, on the part of responsibl e management officials. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Concerning the arguments with regard to the Fifth Amendment, the court approved District Judge Weinfeld\rquote s charge that a \u8220\'3fwitness ha[s] a constit utional right to decline to answer on the ground that it may tend to incriminate him. However, you may, but need not, infer by such refusal that the answers wou ld have been adverse to the witness\rquote interest.\u8221\'3f The court also u pheld the district judge\rquote s ruling that it was appropriate to call witness es who intended to assert a Fifth Amendment } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , because there was always a chance they might not, and because the proof of the convictions } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_212_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_212_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *212 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 of those witnesses lessened the possibility of prejudice. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Second Circuit noted that the proposed Federal Rules of Evidence originally contained a section (Supreme Court Standard 513(a)) that provided that claims of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 were not to be \u8220\'3fa proper subject of comment by judge or counsel,\u8221 \'3f and that \u8220\'3f[n]o inference may be drawn therefrom.\u8221\'3f The cou rt of appeals ruled, however, that there had to be a distinction between civil a nd }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 proceedings, and it cited } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976142357&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , a prison disciplinary proceeding considered to be civil in nature. Invocation of the Fifth Amendment was the equivalent of silence, and \u8220\'3fsilence in t he face of accusation is a relevant fact not barred from evidence. . . .\u8221\' 3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Concerning the propriety of attributing to the employer the Fifth Amendment } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 asserted by a former employee, the court ruled that so long as there were dutie s of loyalty involved, and questioning within the scope of employment, there cou ld be attribution. The court relied on Heidt, The } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0102561041&pubNum=1292&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_1292_1087" }{\f ldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Conjurer\rquote s Circle: The Fifth Amendment } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 in Civil Cases, 91 Yale L. J. 1062, 1087-88, 1107-35 (1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court of appeals was also influenced that Brink\rquote s had brought the s uit, and was not merely the defendant.

\par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Judge Winter\rquote s dissent focused on the prejudicial impact of allowing juri es to draw inferences against parties from assertions of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 by witnesses. Judge Winter, following Judge Learned Hand, argued that a presume d answer does not have the sanction of an oath, and is not subject to cross exam ination. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Judge Winter also analyzed why it was unfair to take an adverse inference agains t a witness\rquote invocation of the Fifth Amendment. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 He showed, by sample questions, that since the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 had to be asserted early to avoid waiver, there could have been any answer to q uestions, and not only answers consistent with the inference urged by the questi oner. Furthermore, there was no effective right of cross-examination. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 XIV. Ability of Counsel to Represent More Than One Defendant and Defense Strateg ies in Multiple Defendant Cases. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Most defense counsel strongly believe that effective representation in a multi-d efendant case } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_213_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_213_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *213

} } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 requires close and harmonious cooperation. The fewer the counsel, the better th at end can be served. However, common representation of multiple defendants by o ne, or few, counsel gives rise to particularly difficult problems. This section will discuss those problems, as reflected in ethical and professional pronouncem ents and leading cases. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A. Professional Codes. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The relevant canon is Canon 5, requiring the lawyer to exercise \u8220\'3findepe ndent professional judgment\u8221\'3f on behalf of a client. EC 5-15 states that the lawyer should \u8220\'3fweigh carefully the possibility that his judgment m ay be impaired or his loyalty divided\u8221\'3f if his clients have \u8220\'3fpo tentially differing interests,\u8221\'3f and that the lawyer should \u8220\'3fre solve all doubts against the propriety of the representation.\u8221\'3f If the c lients have \u8220\'3fdiffering interests,\u8221\'3f the lawyer should \u8220\'3 fnever\u8221\'3f represent the multiple clients; if the interests are \u8220\'3f potentially differing,\u8221\'3f there are \u8220\'3ffew situations\u8221\'3f in which such multiple representation is justified. A reason given is that if the potentiality becomes an actuality the lawyer would have to withdraw and there wo uld be a \u8220\'3flikelihood of hardships on the client.\u8221\'3f DR 5-105 sta tes these principles more specifically. The lawyer is to decline employment if h is independent professional judgment \u8220\'3fwill be or is likely to be advers ely affected.\u8221\'3f The following exception is noted: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (C) . . . a lawyer may represent multiple clients if it is obvious that he can a dequately represent the interest of each and if each consents to the representat ion after full disclosure of the possible effect of such representation on the e xercise of his independent professional judgment on behalf of each. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, although differently worded, are su bstantially to the same effect. See Rule 1.7 (b): \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may b e materially limited by the lawyer\rquote s responsibilities to another client o r to a third person, or by the lawyer\rquote s own interests, unless: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_214_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_214_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *214 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely aff ected; and \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (2) the client consents after consultation. When representation of multiple clie nts in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks i nvolved. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 B. Joint Defense } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The sharing of information among defense counsel is often essential to an effect ive defense. As discussed in the \u8220\'3fCommon Interest\u8221\'3f exception t o waiver (see discussion, supra), such communications are protected. But problem s abound. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. Suppose clients are present at the meeting. Conversations among clients alone are, of course, not

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991134724&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Gotti, 771 F. Supp. 535 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , but } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 exists even if one lawyer\rquote s client communicates to a lawyer not represen ting him. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990015399&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_244" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 244 (2d Cir. 1990) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , on remand, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990089080&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 738 F. Supp. 654 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (E.D.N.Y. 1990, aff\rquote d, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991028151&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 924 F.2d 443, }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1991099571&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 112 S. Ct. 55 (1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Suppose, however, that one defendant pleads guilty and, either voluntarily or as a condition of the plea, the defendant or his counsel is called before the g rand jury (or at trial) to testify. Can defense counsel stop the prosecutor from eliciting testimony and from introducing memoranda of interviews? Beyond the pa rticular defendant-turned-witness, can defense counsel preserve the confidential ity of consultations with experts, against the willingness of one of the defense team to divulge to the prosecutor? See, for a discussion of some of these conce rns, Uelmen, The Joint Defense } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 : Know the Risks, 14 Litigation, 4 (1988). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. Approximately 100 years ago, a Virginia court held that the counsel of a co-d efendant could not testify about what one of the defendants said at a joint meet ing because it was protected by the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Callan v. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1871009511&pubNum=784&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Commonwealth, 62 Va. 822 (1872) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3fThey had a right, all the accused and all of the counsel, to consult together about the case and the defense, and it follows as a necessary conseque nce, that all the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_215_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_215_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *215 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information, derived by any of the counsel from such consultation is } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . . . .\u8221\'3f). More recently, a court has commented that the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 has been \u8220\'3fextended . . . to virtually any exchange of information amon g clients and lawyers on the same side of a case.\u8221\'3f See, e.g., } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1964113835&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1964) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ( } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 applies even though clients were not co-defendants at time when conversation oc curred); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990015399&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237 (2d Cir. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, __ U.S. __, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991099571&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 112 S.Ct. 55 (1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (\u8220\'3f[t]he need to protect the free flow of information from client to at torney logically exists whenever multiple clients share a common interest about a legal matter.\u8221\'3f) } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989065145&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Bay State Ambulance and Hosp. and Rental Service, Inc., 874 F.2 d 20 (1st Cir. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985132969&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Eisenberg v. Gagnon, 766 F.2d 770 (3d Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&pubNum=780&cite=474US946&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&t ransitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 474 U.S. 946 (1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979112438&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1

.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&pubNum=780&cite=444US833&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&t ransitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 444 U.S. 833 (1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; see, generally, Morvillo, Joint Defense Agreements, N.Y.L.J. (Dec. 3, 1991). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. In states that have adopted the Uniform Rules of Evidence, the Joint Defense } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 appears to have been codified. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is defined as protecting communications \u8220\'3fmade for the purpose of facil itating the rendition of professional legal services to the client . . . by him or his representative or his lawyer or a representative of the lawyer to a lawye r or a representative of a lawyer representing another party in a pending action and concerning a matter of common interest therein.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 5. A New York court has limited the joint defense } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

to protect communications only if made to \u8220\'3fbuild a joint defense or to join [the] co-defendant\rquote s defense team.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1989178678&pubNum=605&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_605_85" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 People v. Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d 80, 85 (1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Hence, if one codefendant\rquote s interests are potentially adverse to those of another codefendant, then, it could be argued, those co-defendants have no re asonable expectation of confidentiality with respect to communications made in t he other\rquote s presence. See Joel Cohen, Interviewing Clients: Don\rquote t B low the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , N.Y.L.J., March 16, 1990, at 1 (discussing situations in which the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 may be destroyed). See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990015399&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_245" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 245 (2d Cir. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, __ U.S. __, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991099571&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 112 S.Ct. 55 (1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , (holding that the indirect use of confidential information derived from an age nt of the codefendant would violate the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney

} } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20 {\i0 \fs20 client } } {\i0 \fs20 } {\i0 \fs20

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0

\cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_216_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_216_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *216 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 6. Despite the existence of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , counsel should be skeptical before agreeing to a joint defense. Uelmen points out, for example, that } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

co-defendants are typically unreliable and both sides should agree to immediate ly disclose any overtures by the prosecution. But many defendants in } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 cases can be reluctant to disclose such an overture, for fear of compromising t heir lives if they wish to entertain the possibility of a plea. That is one good reason for skepticism about the sanctity of important conversations. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 7. This issue of potential adversity and the possibility of silent deals by one or more of the defendants raises legal as well as practical problems. May the go vernment condition the acceptance of a plea on the defendant\rquote s willingnes s to waive his } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ? Robert Morvillo cites such an instance, and the government\rquote s retreat in reaction to a defense motion for injunction based on a violation of the joint d efense agreement. Morvillo, Joint Defense Agreements, N.Y.L.J. (Dec. 3, 1991). B ut the law is not so clear, and there is a popular reaction to the effect that j oint defense agreements should not be allowed to permit conspirators to continue their conspiracy in the courtroom. Another issue arises from the very logic of joint defense; if lawyers in a joint defense can hear confidences from other def endants, and other defendants then plead, can the lawyers ethically cross-examin

e such defendants-turned-witnesses, and is that a ground for disqualification? S ee Morvillo, supra, citing to United States v. Anderson, No. CR91-109ZR (W.D. Wa sh. Sep. 19, 1991), which held that the defendant\rquote s waiver, presumably in the joint defense agreement, prevented disqualification. Another situation may arise if a defendant pleads and, because of fear for his life or otherwise, cont inues to attend joint defense meetings. If he reports conversations to the gover nment, a prosecution can be vitiated if the government has procured the compromi se; rights under the Sixth Amendment are then implicated. But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1990015399&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237 (2d Cir. 1989) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, ______ U.S. ____, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991099571&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 112 S. Ct. 55 (1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (no Sixth Amendment violation); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981127808&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Melvin, 650 F.2d 641 (5th Cir. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (no Sixth Amendment violation). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A pretrial breach of the co-defendant } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 is harder to prevent than one at trial. Typically a defendant is not entitled t o any remedy } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_217_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_217_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *217 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

absent a showing of prejudice -- and any remedy should be tailored short of dis missing the indictment. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981127808&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Melvin, 650 F.2d 641 (5th Cir. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (court of appeals reversed lower courts dismissal of the indictment and held th at there was no Sixth Amendment violation where a co-defendant participated in j oint meetings with lawyers and clients after he agreed to become an informant fo r the government). Where a co-defendant switches sides the best thing to do is s eek a \u8220\'3fcourt order impounding any } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 material in the possession of the co-defendant or his attorney.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 C. Joint Defense Agreements \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Co-defendants and their attorneys may execute a joint defense agreement which re stricts participants from disclosing the discussions occurring at joint defense meetings or, sometimes, requires co-owners of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 for such discussions to receive notice before disclosure. A joint defense agree ment must address a number of important considerations. For example, what if mor e defendants are added to a case after the agreement had been executed? } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Would they automatically be included in the agreement? Additionally, if one defe ndant wishes to leave the case (i.e., plea bargain), what effect will that have upon the agreement? Will that defendant be barred from disclosing information fu rnished by others? Must that defendant give notice to the others? Further, can o ne client\rquote s attorney cross examine another defendant at trial who was a p arty to the agreement? In other words, is there any possibility of disqualificat ion? For sample clauses, see Joel Cohen, Interviewing Clients: Don\rquote t Blow

the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , N.Y.L.J., March 16, 1990 at 4. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See also Linda Himelstein, Top Lawyers Are Subpoenaed In BCCI Probe, Legal Times April 27, 1992 at 1. The article discusses the growing concern in the defense c ommunity of challenges by prosecutors to joint-defense agreements. The prosecuto rs in the BCCI case subpoenaed five defense attorneys to inquire into the possib ility that the joint-defense agreement was undermining discovery. The agreement called for any documents shared between counsel to be returned to their originat or, preventing the government from obtaining discovery except from the source. T he attorneys have stated that all subpoenas were being properly answered. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_218_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_218_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *218 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. The Right to Counsel of One\rquote s Choice \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \qc \b0 {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 a) Wheat v. United States \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Sixth Amendment guarantees that \u8220\'3f[i]n all } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of

Counsel for his defense.\u8221\'3f The issue that divided the courts of appeal is whether an accused, notwithstanding potential conflict, may waive that potent ial conflict and insist on counsel of his choice in preference to appointed coun sel. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1988066949&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 held that the guarantee exists to assure that } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 defendants receive a fair trial, not that they necessarily have the right to co unsel of their choice. In that case, involving a narcotics conspiracy, one defen dant, shortly before trial, sought to discharge the counsel who had acted for hi m and to substitute the counsel who had been acting for a co-defendant who had p leaded guilty but who had not yet had his plea accepted or been sentenced. Both defendants waived the potential conflict and the right to cross examine one anot her, but the trial judge, after a hearing, refused to allow the substitution. Th e Supreme Court affirmed, holding that \u8220\'3fthe institutional interest in t he rendition of just verdicts in } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 cases may be jeopardized by unregulated multiple representation\u8221\'3f, that there was a presumption in favor of the counsel of choice but that the presumpt ion could be overcome by a showing of a serious potential of conflict, and that waiver alone did not solve the problem because counsel could not responsibly kno w before trial how the evidence might come in during trial and to what extent co unsel might have to cross examine particular witnesses. The dissent ( } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justices } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Marshall and Brennan) wrote that the Constitutional guarantee recognized the ri ght of an accused to have \u8220\'3feffective control over the conduct of his de fense\u8221\'3f through counsel of his choice. Concurring, } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justices } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Stevens and Blackmun noted that original counsel remained available to advise w ith regard to issues arising from conflicts. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 By a footnote, the Supreme Court noted the Second Circuit view that there was al so a public interest to be considered: implicitly, a possibly better ability to induce a plea where common counsel was not acting. Id. at n. 2, citing } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986102135&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_250" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon Doe, 781 F. 2d 238, 250-251 (2d Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied sub nom., } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986218501&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Roe v. United States, 475 U.S. 1108 (1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . That sentiment was not expressed in the decision. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_219_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_219_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *219 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Professor Steven Gillers, in an article published in the New York Law Journal, August 12, 1991, criticizes the rule of Wheat, to the effect that the sixth amen dment assures a competent defense, and not necessarily the defense counsel of ch oice. Gillers argues that this ruling can be pushed too far, to prevent choice a ltogether if there is any question of taint on the part of the chosen counsel. T he courts should be reluctant to disqualify counsel chosen by the accused, and s hould be sensitive to intelligent agreements by the accused to waive conflicts. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \qc \b0

{\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 b) Courts of Appeal \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 One consideration noted by the Supreme Court was \u8220\'3fthe apparent willingn ess of Courts of Appeals to entertain ineffective assistance claims from defenda nts who have specifically waived the right to conflict-free counsel.\u8221\'3f T hat consideration, however, has not seemed to prevail in the Supreme Court itsel f, at least without a specific showing that the conflict of interest adversely a ffected the lawyer\rquote s performance. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1987080056&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (1987) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , defendant had been sentenced to death, and the conviction and sentence had bee n affirmed by the Georgia Supreme Court. On writ of habeas corpus, defendant arg ued that the partner of defendant\rquote s lawyer had represented a co-defendant , and the two lawyers had even collaborated on the brief for the co-defendant. A s a result, defendant argued, there was a conflict of interest, causing certain arguments about relative culpability and other arguments not to be made. The Sup reme Court rejected the arguments, observing that \u8220\'3fparticularly in smal ler communities where the supply of qualified lawyers willing to accept the dema nding and unrewarding work of representing capital prisoners is extremely limite d,\u8221\'3f potential conflicts will not in and of themselves require a dismiss al. The dissent considered that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of right to counse l had not been satisfied, and that there should be a presumption of prejudice, n ot a requirement that prejudice be specifically proved. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981109602&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_268" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 268 (1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . An employer, charged with showing obscene movies, nominated and paid counsel f or individual defendants. When the employer refused, or became unable, to honor his promise to pay the individual fines, the individuals were remanded to jail. The Supreme Court held that the trial proceedings violated the employee\rquote s constitutional } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_220_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_220_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *220 }

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 rights of counsel for there was a \u8220\'3fpossibility\u8221\'3f of a conflict , and that the trial judge failed to inquire into the possible conflict; the Sup reme Court remanded the case to the State Court for a hearing. In a footnote, th e majority ruled: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 It is inherently wrong to represent both the employer and the employee if the em ployee\rquote s interest may, and the public interest will, be advanced by the e mployee\rquote s disclosure of his employer\rquote s } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 conduct. For the same reasons, it is also inherently wrong for an attorney who represents only the employee to accept a promise to pay from one whose } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 liability may turn on the employee\rquote s testimony. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1970109751&pubNum=162&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_162_278" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Abrams, 56 N.J. 271, 276, 266 A.2d 275, 278 (1970) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981109602&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_269" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 450 U.S. at 269, n.15 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1978114212&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_485" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 485 (1978) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (on due process review of state court denial of motion for appointment of separ ate counsel held, automatic grounds for reversal where trial judge, on such moti on, \u8220\'3ffails to take adequate steps to ascertain whether the risk [of a c onflict] was too remote to warrant separate counsel.\u8221\'3f } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \qc \b0 {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 c) Habeas Corpus \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980116741&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 represents, perhaps, a contrary view, permitting a representation that was not entirely conflict-free. Three defendants, commonly represented but separately tr ied, were accused of murdering two labor officials. Only one was found guilty. O n a petition for habeas corpus, he contended that he was denied effective right of counsel, arguing that he was not called to testify because his lawyer feared that he would inculpate the other two client-defendants. The Supreme Court held that the state court\rquote s constitutional obligation to inquire into the poss ible conflicts depended on either timely objection or proof that an actual confl ict adversely affected his lawyer\rquote s performance. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Absent special circumstances, trial courts may assume either that multiple repre sentation entails no conflict or that the lawyer and his clients knowingly accep t such risk of conflict as may exist \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_221_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_221_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *221 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980116741&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 346-47 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Upon writ of habeas corpus a district court will review if defendant\rquote s re presentation in the state court was conflict free. The Second Circuit in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991056280&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Strouse v. Leonardo, 928 F.2d 548 (2d Cir. 1991) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , followed Cuyler in holding that the mere potentiality of conflict was not suff icient for reversal of defendant\rquote s conviction in state court. The circuit court held \u8220\'3fthe trial court must initiate an inquiry when it knows or reasonably should know of the possibility of a conflict of interest.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991056280&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 555 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In the absence of such an inquiry by the state trial judge, the district court then is to inquire (a) was the representation \u8220\'3finfected by an actual c onflict of interest and, if so (b), \u8220\'3fwhether this conflict \lquote adve rsely affected\rquote [the lawyer\rquote s] performance.\u8221\'3f Id. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The dictum of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justice } }

{\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Frankfurter, dissenting in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1942118883&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_92" }{\fldrs lt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 92 (1942) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , is oft-quoted: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Joint representation is a means of insuring against reciprocal recrimination. A common defense often gives strength against a common attack. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. Second Circuit \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Second Circuit, prior to Wheat, took a strong stand favoring defendants\rquo te choice of counsel, even of counsel having a potential conflict. Thus, in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982110822&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d 1064 (2d Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , a long-time and effective representation of the client was held to outweigh a temporary and limited relationship with a potentially adverse witness, leading t o a decision that the attorney should not be disqualified notwithstanding a poss ible need to cross-examine the witness. Later appeal, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983155769&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 723 F.2d 217 (2d Cir. 1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984216992&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

466 U.S. 951 (1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The defendant Cunningham, an important political figure, was indicted for failin g to report allegedly unlawful payments as income. A material witness, alleged t o be an unindicted co-conspirator whom the government planned to call as a witne ss, was represented for a time by the same lawyer who had represented Cunningham over an appreciable period of time. Cunningham stated that his attorney would n ot cross-examine his former client except as to matters that were in the public record. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_222_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_222_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *222 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court of appeals, reversing the district court, held that Cunningham could have his choice of counsel. The right to choose counsel, it ruled, is a \u8220\' 3f\rquote right of Constitutional dimension\u8221\'3f\rquote and should \u8220\ '3f\rquote not be unnecessarily obstructed by the court.\u8221\'3f\rquote } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982110822&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1070" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 672 F.2d at 1070 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982127945&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Curcio, 680 F.2d 881 (2d Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , later appeal, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin

dType=Y&serNum=1982151002&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 694 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , an attorney had represented two brothers, Francis and Gus Curcio, in a number of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 cases, including the present case. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The government moved to disqualify the attorney under } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCRPR44&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7a b161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType= DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Federal Rule of } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf5 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Procedure 44(c) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 : \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Unless it appears that there is good cause to believe no conflict of interest is likely to arise, the court shall take such measures as may be appropriate to pr otect each defendant\rquote s right to counsel. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court held a } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCRPR44&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7a b161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType= DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rule 44 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 hearing, and elicited from each of the two defendants that they had the requisi te degree of understanding, that they appreciated that they could have separate and independent counsel and that the case might develop in an unanticipated way to make the interests of the two defendants \u8220\'3fvery adverse\u8221\'3f to one another -- in cross-examinations, in deciding whether or not to testify, in remarking on degrees of culpability in summation, and in other aspects of trial strategy -- and that, notwithstanding, each wished to continue with the same cou nsel, waived the right to conflict free representation, waived their } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to prevent their communications with counsel from being used on behalf of the o ther, and agreed that they could not later discharge counsel if that would delay the trial. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The district judge nevertheless disqualified counsel from representing either de fendant. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a fuller hearing, ruling that def endants in a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 case have the constitutional right to make a knowing and intelligent election t o be represented by common counsel \u8220\'3fdespite the existence of a conflict of interest.\u8221\'3f The court ruled that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of co nflict-free representation was a right not an obligation, and that in some cases , \u8220\'3fcertain advantages might accrue from joint representation.\u8221\'3f On demand, the district judge, in ascertaining if there had been a \u8220\'3fkn owing } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_223_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_223_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *223 }

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 and intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8221\'3f by both clients, should elicit a narrative response from each defenda nt, showing his understanding of the possible conflicts of interest, adequate di scussion of the matter with his attorney and, if he wished, outside counsel, and a clear waiver of the right of conflict-free representation. If, after a reason able time for evaluation, defendants wished to continue with common counsel, and their decision to an objective observer would seem \u8220\'3fsensible, prudent or wise,\u8221\'3f defendants\rquote decision should be permitted. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Both clients must, of course, consent. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Wheat v. United States, supra, may cause the Second Circuit to change its view a nd to return to an earlier and stricter view favoring conflict-free representati on. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981138685&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Camera v. Fogg, 658 F.2d 80 (2d Cir.) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982202058&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 454 U.S. 1129 (1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. New York State \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The rule in New York State seems to favor counsel of choice. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984132432&pubNum=605&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Abrams (John Anonymous, Esq.), 62 N.Y.2d 183 (1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . One attorney represented fourteen employees working in the box office of a lar ge sports arena, in defense of a grand jury investigation of \u8220\'3fticket sc alping.\u8221\'3f Several of the witnesses claimed their Fifth Amendment rights. When two were given immunity, both testified but in a way which the Attorney Ge neral showed was contradicted by the documentary evidence. The New York Supreme Court ruled that witnesses were empowered to waive \u8220\'3fpotential\u8221\'3f conflicts of interest of their attorney, but not \u8220\'3factual\u8221\'3f con flicts of interest, and that the public\rquote s need to unencumbered Grand Jury investigations outweighed the rights of the individual to a particular lawyer\r quote s representation. The Appellate Division affirmed, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983207838&pubNum=155&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 92 A.D.2d 484 (1st Dep\rquote t 1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , but the Court of Appeals reversed. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Court of Appeals ruled, \u8220\'3f[a]n individual\rquote s right to the atto rney of his choice is too important to be disregarded simply because the prosecu tor\rquote s . . . task may be made easier if he is allowed to divide and conque r his perceived opposition.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984132432&pubNum=605&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_605_199" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 62 N.Y.2d at 199. }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 For a discussion of the difficult practice problems counsel have to confront, S ee, A.K. Hellerstein and D. Bleich, When Your Clients Are in Conflict, 7 Nationa l Law Journal 15 (Apr. 8, 1985). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Some courts, however, are using an increasingly narrow test in determining an } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_224_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_224_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *224 }

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 attorney\rquote s ability to represent more than one defendant, especially when defendants are charged with } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 enterprise. Theoretically, the client should be able to sort out the various po ssible conflicts and make an informed waiver of the conflict of interest. But th e state also claims an interest in not allowing defendants to create a silent ar med camp against the government through the use of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 asserted by counsel. Thus the decision to disqualify a lawyer is being made by courts rather than allowing clients to waive the conflict of interest. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 This issue is implicated in the Gotti case, where Judge I. Leo Glasser noted, wi thout comment, various potential conflicts on the part of Gotti\rquote s lawyer, and disqualified on those and other grounds. Although the potential conflicts w ere waived by Gotti, the court accepted the government\rquote s argument that co unsel\rquote s testimony and conduct were potentially relevant in proving a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u8220\'3fenterprise\u8221\'3f, consisting of making that counsel available to defend various \u8220\'3fsoldiers\u8221\'3f of the enterprise. The government ar gued that overheard conversations with and by counsel constituted an important p roof of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 enterprise, and it would be prejudicial to force the government to deal with tr ial counsel who, without taking the stand while offering rebuttal, could use obj ections and arguments during trial as a way of rebutting such proof. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 D. Fifth Amendment Plea on Suggestion of Another Client\rquote s Counsel. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975142248&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Fayer, 523 F.2d 661 (2d Cir. 1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , an attorney, believing in his own clients\rquote innocence of the charge of b ribing an FHA appraiser and, allegedly, that advice by a lawyer to a key witness , an appraiser, cooperated with the prosecutor because of foolish advice given b y an inexperienced lawyer. The attorney urged the appraiser to drop his attorney and accept advice to plead the Fifth Amendment before the grand jury. The appra iser was told his new lawyer\rquote s fee would be paid by the co-defendants (th e persons accused of bribing) and that he could have a job in the co-defendants\ rquote business if he lost his government job because of retaliation. The lawye r who gave the advice was then accused of obstructing } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . He was found not guilty of obstructing } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , for his motive to protect his own clients was not his only motive; he may also have been motivated to protect the appraiser. The statements disparaging the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_225_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_225_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *225 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 appraiser\rquote s lawyer were referred to the bar association to consider disc iplinary actions. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 E. Conflicts in a Corporate Setting: Simultaneous and Successive Representation of a Company and its Personnel. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. A firm representing two commonly managed corporations in separate investigati ons by the SEC and the Comptroller of the Currency was denied fees for the perio d that a conflict existed between the interests of the two clients. Disclosure s hould have been made to the full boards of both corporations rather than relying on the knowledge of principal officers. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Westgate California Corp. v. Mudge Rose Guthrie & Alexander, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 96,799 (S.D. Cal. 1978). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. In Silvershein v. Furman, No. 91 Civ. 3118, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15460 (S.D. N.Y. Oct. 29, 1991), the court rejected plaintiff\rquote s claim that defendant\ rquote s counsel should be disqualified under Canons 4 and 9 of the Model Code o f Professional Responsibility because one of the firm\rquote s members had met w ith the plaintiff ten years previously to discuss different complaints against t he defendant. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

The court first used the three-pronged test of Canon 4, examining (1) whether th e firm previously represented the adverse party, (2) whether that representation was on matters \u8220\'3fsubstantially related\u8221\'3f to the current suit, a nd (3) whether that representation gave the firm access to \u8220\'3frelevant } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information.\u8221\'3f While the prior representation was conceded, the court r uled that the matters in the earlier meeting were not \u8220\'3fsubstantially re lated\u8221\'3f to the present case. Non-identical allegations may sometimes war rant disqualification, but only if the attorney gained \u8220\'3fsome advantage not otherwise available but for the prior confidential relationship, even if tha t advantage goes only to background matters.\u8221\'3f No such advantage was fou nd here. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court further ruled that without the Canon 4 violation it would be \u8220\'3 fdownright perverse\u8221\'3f to disqualify counsel under Canon 9 which requires lawyers to \u8220\'3fstrive to avoid not only professional impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety.\u8221\'3f \u8220\'3fCanon 9 does not confer a ro ving moral commission to disqualify attorneys based on conduct specifically trea ted in other Canons.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_226_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_226_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *226 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. United States v. McDonnell-Douglas Corp., Crim. No. 79-516, slip op. (D.D.C. June 4, 1980). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The historic counsel of the company represented, at company expense, 52 witnesse s in a grand jury probe of illegal payments overseas, and in related agency inve stigations by the SEC, IRS, DOJ and FTC. Four became defendants. When the govern ment identified them as targets, company counsel withdrew as their counsel and n ew counsel were engaged. When, later, the company was identified as a target, co unsel withdrew from representing all individuals (except a very few key individu als) and confined their representation to the corporation. Another firm was enga ged by the company to represent all who so wished. \par

} } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The government moved to disqualify the firm from representing the company. The m otion was denied, \u8220\'3ffor such action would deprive the corporation of cou nsel who, over a period of five years, have become thoroughly familiar with the matter.\u8221\'3f Referring to the corporate decision to continue with counsel, made by a special committee of the board, and referring to the competing conside ration of Canon 9\rquote s injunction to avoid \u8220\'3fthe appearance of impro priety,\u8221\'3f the court ruled that the canon should not be applied \u8220\'3 fover-broadly so as to subject a client to the loss of his counsel, selected thr ough trust, intelligence, reason and reliance, unless some specifically identifi able impropriety does occur.\u8221\'3f \u8220\'3fThe harm to the defendant\u8221 \'3f from loss of counsel \u8220\'3ffar out-weighs any benefits likely to result from disqualification,\u8221\'3f notwithstanding the potential conflict from re presentation, by one firm, of the corporation and several key officers of the co rporation. The waiver exercised by the board adequately deals with that potentia l conflict. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court next treated the potential for conflict with respect to the law firm\r quote s ability to cross-examine their former clients. The court ruled that ther e should not be a disqualification, based on the informed waiver (upon the advis e of successor counsel) by all but one of the former clients, the knowledge of a ll that the firm\rquote s primary loyalty was to the corporation, the profession al judgment of the firm that they learned nothing more from their former clients than from the public record, and the substantiation of all of this in an eviden tiary hearing. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_227_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_227_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *227 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Another firm was made available to 23 high ranking employees. After one of them was identified as a target, the firm continued to act for him, and the others f ound new counsel. They all assented, with the advice of successor counsel, to th e firm\rquote s continuation. The court allowed this form of multiple representa tion, on waiver and provision for hearing similar to that described above. \u822 0\'3fIt would be most unwise to place upon every individual seeking counsel the status of a \lquote Typhoid Mary\rquote who, upon entering the front door, woul d forever taint the firm\rquote s representation of any of its clients with whom he might have a potential conflict.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 4. In

} {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980135622&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. FMC Corp., 495 F. Supp. 172 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (E.D. Pa. 1980), a corporation retained outside counsel to represent four of it s employees in grand jury proceedings. The grand jury indicted the corporation, and the corporation retained the same law firm to represent it. The government m oved to disqualify the law firm on the ground of conflict arguing that the four employees were to be witnesses against the corporation, presumably after they ha d been given immunity. In response, the four former employees waived rights to m aintain confidentiality with regard to their communications to counsel and denie d that they had imparted confidential information to the attorneys. The company\ rquote s president represented that the company waived its rights arising from a ny possible disability of their attorneys to cross-examine their former clients. Thus, with all sides to the potential conflict in agreement, the court ruled th at the government lacked effective standing to complain, and denied the motion. See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980143992&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Linton, 502 F. Supp. 871 (D. Nev. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In another district, a ruling to the opposite effect, that the attorney for a co rporate defendant could not also represent employees subpoenaed by the plaintiff to testify at a deposition, was reversed. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980147632&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litigation, 502 F. Supp. 1092 (C.D. Cal. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , rev\rquote d, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981140448&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 658 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied sub nom. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1982210850&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1

.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 California v. Standard Oil Co., 455 U.S. 990 (1982) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The district court, on motion of the plaintiffs (attorneys-general of states s uing as parens patriae), had ruled that counsel had a potential conflict since t hey might have to impeach the witnesses they represented, and that the represent ation was unfair since it prevented plaintiffs\rquote counsel from approaching witnesses informally to evaluate the contributions they could } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_228_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_228_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *228 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 make as witnesses and from examining as to the influences shaping their testimo ny. District Judge William P. Gray accepted that the witnesses desired the compa ny\rquote s lawyers to represent them without charge, rather than appearing with out counsel or with counsel they had to hire and pay, but ruled that ethical con siderations and public policy favoring full disclosure were more important: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 However, \lquote the whole } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 truth } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \rquote often becomes a matter of subjective judgment, and a factual conclusion that is deeply held by a party and its counsel may diverge substantially from t he honest recollection of a perceptive witness. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 1095. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 During the sessions devoted to \lquote coaching\rquote , the future witness is l ikely to try to adapt himself to expectations mirrored in the interviewer\rquote s one-sided attitude. As a consequence, gaps in his memory may even unconscious ly be filled out by what he thinks accords with the lawyer\rquote s expectations and are in tune with his thesis. \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 1097, quoting Damaska, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0284402028&pubNum=1268&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt 1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_1268_1094" }{\f ldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Presentation of Evidence and Factfinding Precision, 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1083, 109 4 (1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Judge Gray considered that the lawyers for both parties should have equal access to the witnesses and, if the witness chose to be prepared by one and not the ot her, that the conversations between lawyer and witness should not be made immune from questioning because of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 However, it must be remembered that they are not parties, and it is in the inter ests of

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 that both sides be entitled to their testimony and be able to make full inquiry into any influences that may have affected such testimony. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding, under Upjohn Co. v . United States, 449 U.S. 382 (1981), that there could be one counsel for the co mpany and for employees who acted for the company, both past and present employe es. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_229_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_229_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *229 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1993055799&pubNum=0000999&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=c blt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Jewell-Rung Agency, Inc. v. Haddad Org., Inc., ___ F.Supp. ___, 1993 WL 45180 at 6 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (The court warned defense counsel that its firm policy of offering to represent former employees of corporate clients for free \u8220\'3fpresents a potential f or abuse in that it provides a means for the corporate party to exert influence and control over a nonparty witness.\u8221\'3f). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 5. In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981100346&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 FTC v. Exxon Corp., 636 F.2d 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1980)

}}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , counsel for Exxon Corp. was disqualified to represent Reliance Corp., a compan y which had merged into Exxon but which merger was subject to a \u8220\'3fhold s eparate\u8221\'3f order. Counsel, however, was permitted to obtain all relevant, non } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information from Reliance\rquote s personnel that Exxon\rquote s counsel needed to contest the FTC proceeding (including confidential, competitively sensitive information), subject to a requirement that the information be received for the case alone and that it be kept confidential. Exxon\rquote s in-house counsel, be cause of the closeness of relationships with Exxon\rquote s management, was not given this right. The court recognized that Exxon\rquote s and Reliance\rquote s present interests were not in conflict, but that they could be if a divestiture were to be ordered. The rulings were intended to preserve the possibility of fu ture competition. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Although the court appears also to have ordered separate representation of Relia nce\rquote s potential future interest as a separate company, it is questionable that there would be anyone to appoint such a counsel, or pay a fee, or give ins tructions. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 6. For a discussion of when potential conflicts arise from representing clients with differing interests, see Brian J. Redding, The } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0102971481&pubNum=100189&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cb lt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Conflicts Jungle in Modern Litigation, 19 Litigation 6 (Winter 1993) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The article describes a conflict arising from a situation in which an attorney learns confidential information about one of the firm\rquote s clients from an unknown adverse party who is seeking the firm\rquote s counsel. The article also discusses the potential conflict from representing a subsidiary corporation and a second client, whose interests are adverse to the subsidiary\rquote s parent. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 F. Conflicts in a Corporate Setting: Representation Against a Former Client. \par

} } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The New York Supreme Court, in Solow v. W. R. Grace & Co., (New York Co., Index 2453/88 (Aug. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_230_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_230_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *230 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 31, 1992)), ruled that plaintiff\rquote s law firm, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan ( \u8220\'3fStroock\u8221\'3f), would not be disqualified even though a former par tner of Stroock, while at another firm, had previously represented defendant. Th e partner had also represented defendant, primarily in preparing an expert witne ss for deposition, while at Stroock five years before. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 All persons involved in that case (except for one associate who performed a tota l of 30 minutes of research) had previously departed Stroock. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The court balanced the right of plaintiff to have counsel of choice with the ris k of confidential information having been passed amongst the firm. Since no New York case was on point, the court applied the ABA Model Rules of Professional Re sponsibility, 1.10(b): \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 When a lawyer has terminated an association with a firm, the firm is not prohibi ted from thereafter representing a person with interests materially adverse to t hose of a client represented by the formerly associated lawyer and not currently represented by the firm, unless: (1) the matter is the same or substantially re lated to that in which the formerly associated lawyer represented the client; an d (2) any lawyer remaining in the firm has information [that is } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ] and material to the matter. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Although the matter handled by Stroock for its former client is related to the c urrent matter, the large size of Stroock allowed for a rebuttable presumption of

infection. The court determined that the partner and associate who had worked o n defendant\rquote s case at Stroock were both infected by knowledge of Grace\rq uote s confidences and therefore would both have been disqualified from represen ting plaintiff in this case. However, since the infected attorneys were no longe r present and Stroock established that no one remaining at the firm possessed kn owledge of any Grace confidences, Stroock was deemed to no longer be infected. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Of note, the court clearly relied on the large size of Stroock (over 340 attorne ys). The court reasoned that in a smaller firm, \u8220\'3fthe infection will con tinue to poison all attorneys\u8221\'3f even after the infected attorneys depart . An irrebuttable presumption exists that attorneys in a small firm share confid ences. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_231_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_231_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *231 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 California courts have ruled similarly. In Henriksen v. Great Am. Sav. and Loan , 14 Cal. App. 4th 109 (1992), the court ruled that the presence of defendant\rq uote s former counsel at plaintiff\rquote s counsel\rquote s firm necessarily di squalified the entire firm. It was beyond question that the attorney possessed c onfidential information regarding the present case and, therefore, had to be dis qualified. The court held that \u8220\'3fwhere an attorney is disqualified becau se he formerly represented and therefore possesses confidential information rega rding the adverse party in the current litigation, vicarious disqualification of the entire firm is compelled as a matter of law.\u8221\'3f \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 G. Agency Sequestration Rules and Multiple Representation. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 SEC } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCRPR7&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rule 7(b) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Rules Relating to Investigations) and the rules of other agencies, see, e.g.,

} {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=15USCAS1312&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cb lt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_f2fd000080d26" } {\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 15 U.S.C. 1312(i)(2) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Civil Investigative Demands) provide for sequestration of witnesses so that on ly the witness and his counsel are permitted at the examination. Counsel for a t arget is not entitled to be present at the examination of witnesses, even if the witness is an officer or employee. SEC v. Meek, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 97,323 (10th Cir. 1980) (not officially reported). If, however, witnesses and the targe t (or other respondent) wish to have common counsel, counsel may not be excluded under the sequestration rule. SEC R. 7(b), provides: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Any person compelled to appear, or who appears by request or permission of the C ommission . . . may be accompanied, represented and advised by counsel. . .; pro vided, however, that all witnesses shall be sequestered, and unless permitted in the discretion of the officer conducting the investigation no witness or the co unsel accompanying any such witness shall be permitted to be present during the examination of any other witness called in such proceeding. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 1. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976145869&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 SEC v. Csapo, 533 F.2d 7 (D.C. Cir. 1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The principal officers of a company under investigation were offered the servi ces of a common counsel, at no charge to the several witnesses. The staff, apply ing its sequestration rule, prevented the common counsel from attending the exam inations and brought an action in the district court to enforce its subpoenas. T he district court rules in } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_232_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_232_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *232 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 favor of the position taken by the SEC, and the respondents appealed. Judge Lum bard of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation, ruled that the witnesses, no t the SEC had the choice in a conflict situation, that the matter was complex an d that replacement of counsel would be a hardship, and that the SEC had failed t o satisfy its burden to show, by \u8220\'3fconcrete\u8221\'3f evidence, that com mon counsel would \u8220\'3fobstruct and impede\u8221\'3f its investigation. The

court noted that the Administrative Procedure Act gave a person summoned to tes tify the right to be accompanied by counsel of his choice. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=5USCAS555&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7ab 161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 5 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 555 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 2. See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1966104966&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 SEC v. Higashi, 359 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1966) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The court pointed out: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to sequester corporation counsel is to deprive the witness of the services of th e attorney most familiar with the source of his vulnerability. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1966104966&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 553 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Court of Appeals added that where adequate funds are available allowing enga gement of sophisticated counsel there is good reason to suppose that the parties would be able to accomplish through independent counsel exactly what the SEC\rq uote s rule seeks to prevent. A rule which, except for a wealthy few, denies eff ective counsel is not permitted by the Administrative Procedure Act. Id. at n. 5 . \par } }

{\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 See also Matters of Westgate Calif. Corp.; Trone v. Mudge Rose Guthrie & Alexand er, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 96,799 (S.D. Cal. December 29, 1978) (recognized pro priety of defense of multiple clients but imposes obligation on attorney to advi se clients of potential and actual conflicts as and when they occur). But cf. Re } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979137557&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Special Grand Jury, 480 F. Supp. 174 (E.D. Wisc. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Payment by corporation of legal expenses of employees and officers does not ne cessarily vitiate defense counsel\rquote s ability to continue with a dual repre sentation.) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 3. But see } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1965110061&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_345_576" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 United States v. Steel, 238 F. Supp. 575, 576 (S.D.N.Y. 1965) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (ruling that respondent did not have a constitutional right to counsel and, the refore, could not complain of sequestration ordered in the belief that multiple representation \u8220\'3fwould tend to hinder the [SEC\rquote s] investigation.\ u8221\'3f) of. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1957101812&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Matter of Groban, 352 U.S. 330 (1957) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (5-4 decision holding no constitutional right } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_233_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_233_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *233 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 to be attended by counsel in fire marshal\rquote s inquest). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0

4. The right of a witness to be accompanied by counsel in an SEC investigation m ay extend to an expert who was asked to be present in order to give technical as sistance to the attorney. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985137855&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 SEC v. Whitman, 613 F. Supp. 48 (D.D.C. 1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The witness was an accountant, who was being examined on the auditing and acco unting services rendered to a client. The witness was accompanied by a lawyer, a nd by an accountant who was present to provide technical assistance on accountin g and auditing issues. The court ruled: \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li360 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Unless the lawyer can receive substantive guidance from an expert technician . . . when he determines in his professional judgment that such assistance is essen tial, his client\rquote s absolute right to counsel during the proceedings would become substantially qualified. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 H. Disqualification Not Subject to Interlocutory Appeal. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Supreme Court, resolving conflicts among the Circuits, has made it clear tha t decisions to disqualify, or not to disqualify, counsel are not subject to inte rlocutory appeal. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 472 (1985); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984108877&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259 (1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . In Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, supra, plaintiff\rquote s attorneys wer e disqualified for misconduct in prosecuting the case. The Supreme Court summari zed the disqualifications that would be refused interlocutory review: orders dis qualifying counsel in civil cases; orders disqualifying counsel in } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 cases; and orders denying a motion to disqualify in civil cases. Query, with re gard to the category omitted -- orders denying a motion to disqualify in } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 cases -- if the Supreme Court intended to allow interlocutory appealability, mo st likely by the prosecutor. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Brennan, concurring, noted that the majority had removed a check against a prac tice of too-frequent motions to disqualify counsel as a way of derailing a case, and joined the majority \u8220\'3fon the understanding that the Courts of Appea ls will develop standards for reviewing final judgments that will effectively pr otect each litigant\rquote s right to retain the attorney of choice.\u8221\'3f I d. at 2767. } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 Justice } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Stevens dissented. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_234_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_234_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *234 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Flanagan v. United States, supra, the courts below had disqualified counsel from a joint representation of multiple defendants. The defendants were four pol ice officers who were accused, because of a series of false arrests, of conspira cy to violate the civil rights laws and related offenses. Three of the four defe ndants moved to sever, arguing that there were degrees of involvement, and that severance was necessary to avoid prejudicial spillover of proofs. The government cross-moved to disqualify the common counsel from the multiple representation.

A } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=L&pubNum=1004365&cite=USFRCRPR44&originatingDoc=I1a577cb1097f11dc915dcad7a b161d0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType= DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rule 44(c) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 hearing was held, resulting in a finding that, although no actual conflict of i nterest had yet developed, there was a clear potential for conflict, as defendan ts\rquote motion for severance made apparent. Notwithstanding a waiver on the p art of all the four defendants of their right to conflict-free representation, t he court ordered disqualification from common representation (and, by implicatio n, from representation of any of the defendants), since the potential conflict w as likely to escalate into an actual conflict, and since it was presumed that th e attorneys had received } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privileged } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 information from each of their clients. On appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the order of disqualification was affirmed. The Supreme Court, dismiss ing the appeal, held that there was no appellate jurisdiction; the disqualificat ion order was not \u8220\'3ffinal\u8221\'3f and could not be appealed, especiall y in a } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 criminal } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 case. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 I. Conflicts in Representation of Insureds. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 On the special problems of insurance counsel defending an insured where the carr ier is proceeding under a reservation of right, see T.S. Zilly, Recent Developme nts in Legal Malpractice Litigation, 6 Litigation, (No. 1) 16 (Fall 1979); D.M. Haskell, Insurance Defense Lawyers Face Liability Over Conflicts of Interest, Na tional Law Journal Feb. 25, 1980, at 27. Generally, where a conflict of interest exists between an insured and its insurer, as for example, where the insurer re serves its rights as to coverage, the insured is entitled to a defense by attorn

eys of its own choosing, with the reasonable costs of such defense to be paid by the insurer. As stated by the New York Court of Appeals in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981136505&pubNum=605&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_605_402" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Public Service Mutual Insurance Co. v. Goldfarb, 53 N.Y.2d 392, 402 (1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 : \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li180 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 inasmuch as the insurer\rquote s interest in defending the lawsuit is in conflic t with the defendant\rquote s interest -- the } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_235_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_235_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *235 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 insurer being liable only upon some of the grounds for recovery asserted and no t upon others -- defendant . . . is entitled to a defense by an attorney of his own choosing whose reasonable fee is to be paid by the insurer. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Accord, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975124072&pubNum=602&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rimar v. Continental Casualty Co., 50 A.D.2d 169, 376 N.Y.S.2d 309 (4th Dep\rquo te t 1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (insured allowed to select counsel because, among other things, insurer partial ly disclaimed coverage thereby creating a conflict of interest); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1974121391&pubNum=602&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cherry, 45 A.D.2d 350, 358 N.Y.S.2d 519 (2d Dep\rq uote t 1974) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d,

} {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976280182&pubNum=605&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 38 N.Y.2d 735 (1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (insured allowed to select his own counsel because insurer\rquote s interest in proving intentional conduct was adverse to the insured\rquote s interest); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983158204&pubNum=602&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 State Farm Insurance Company v. Trezza, 121 Misc. 2d 997, 469 N.Y.S.2d 1008 (Sup . Ct. Nassau Co. 1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (insurer ordered to retain independent counsel chosen by the insured where the insurer\rquote s desire for a verdict finding that all consequences of conduct w ere intended was in conflict with the insured\rquote s desire for a verdict find ing unintentional conduct); } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979119349&pubNum=602&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Western World Insurance Co., Inc. v. Jean & Benny\rquote s Restaurant, Inc., 69 A.D.2d 260, 419 N.Y.S.2d 163 (2d Dep\rquote t) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , appeal dismissed, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979229358&pubNum=605&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 48 N.Y.2d 653 (1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See also Roger E. Warin, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=0102971482&pubNum=100189&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cb lt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Your Lawyer and Your Insurance Company, 19 Litigation 11 (Winter 1993) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (Discussing who has the right to choose an attorney where a conflict may exist between insurer and insured.). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Insurers will often acknowledge coverage on some claims of a lawsuit and reserve or deny coverage as to others. Most courts hold that a conflict, requiring rete ntion of independent counsel, exists when the counsel\rquote s duty to the insur

ed should require it to structure its defense to the disadvantage of the insurer ; this test depends upon the particular factual context of each case. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981123103&pubNum=578&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_578_431" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Chicago & Eastern Ill. Railroad Co. v. Reserve Ins. Co., 99 Ill. App. 3d 433, 42 5 N.E.2d 429, 431-32 (1st Dist. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981136505&pubNum=605&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Public Service Mutual Ins. Co. v. Goldfarb, 53 N.Y.2d 392 (1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . See also A.D. Windt, Insurance Claims and Disputes, Representation of Insureds and Insurers \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 4,18 at 134-139 (1982). The California rule is broader; a conflict of interest may exist whenever the insurer reserves its righ t to disclaim liability at a later date. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984157882&pubNum=227&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Inc. Society, Inc., 162 Cal. App. 3 d 358, 208 Cal. Rptr. 494 (4th Dist. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_236_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_236_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *236 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The rationale of all these cases is that the primary allegiance of counsel is t o the insured. \u8220\'3fWhen conflicts-of-interest arise between an insurance c arrier and its insurer, the lawyer representing the insured must act exclusively on behalf of, and in the best interests of the insured.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986124288&pubNum=344&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_344_170" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Point Pleasant Canoe Rental v. Tinicum Twp., 110 F.R.D. 166, 170 }}}

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (E.D. Pa. 1986). See also } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1966130745&pubNum=661&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 65 Cal. 2d 263, 419 P.2d 168 (1966) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1979136001&pubNum=578&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_578_1371" }{\fld rslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Rogers v. Robson, Masters, Ryan, Brumund & Belom, 74 Ill. App. 3d 467, 392 N.E.2 d 1365, 1371 (3d Dist. 1979) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980123699&pubNum=578&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 81 Ill. 2d 201, 407 N.E. 2d 47; }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980138255&pubNum=162&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Liberman v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 84 N.J. 325, 419 A.2d 417 (1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; Goldfarb, supra. That allegiance requires counsel to preserve the secrets and confidences of the client. See, e.g., A.B.A. Informal Opinion No. 1476 (1981) ( \u8220\'3fAmong a lawyer\rquote s foremost professional responsibilities are fid elity to a client and preservation of confidences and secrets of a client. These responsibilities exist even if a person other than the client is paying the law yer\rquote s fee.\u8221\'3f); N.Y. Code Prof. Resp., DR 4-101(B); EC 4-1. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 If, in the course of defending an insured, counsel discovers facts which, if kno wn to the insurer, would entitle the insurer to disclaim the policy on the groun ds of the insured\rquote s fraud, counsel is bound not to reveal these facts, in the very same way that independent counsel would be bound not to disclose the \ u8220\'3fsecrets and confidences\u8221\'3f of his client, the insured. N.Y. Stat e Ethics Op. No. 73 (1968). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Much the same rule applies as between Insurer and Reinsurer on a risk. In }

{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992131389&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 North River Ins. v. Philadelphia Reins., 797 F.Supp 363 (D.N.J. 1992) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the Insurer, having paid a claim following judgment against its insured in an asbestos litigation, made claim against its Reinsurer. The Reinsurer sought disc overy of information as to the reasons why an appeal was not filed. The Insurer refused discovery, claiming the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The Reinsurer argued that no } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 existed because of a \u8220\'3fcommon interest\u8221\'3f between the two, with respect to the underlying claim. The court upheld } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 }

{\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , finding that \u8220\'3fthere is no waiver of the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 merely because an insured and its insurer have a \lquote common interest\rquote in the outcome of a particular issue.\u8221\'3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1992131389&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transiti onType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Id. at 367 }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Here the Insurer had retained its own \u8220\'3fwholly independent\u8221\'3f c ounsel, and the Reinsurer had no input on the defense of the case. \u8220\'3fA w aiver may be found only when there has been a dual representation of both partie s, or the } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 privilege } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 has otherwise been waived.\u8221\'3f Id. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0

} {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_237_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_237_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *237 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1991172753&pubNum=595&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Atlanta International Insurance Co. v. Bell, 438 Mich. 512, 475 N.W.2d 294 (1991 ) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that defense counsel retained by an insurance company to defend its insured can be held answerable to the insurer for profess ional malpractice. The court held that while no } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 relationship existed between the insurer and counsel retained on insured\rquote s behalf, liability could be found based on equitable subrogation. That is, whi le separate counsel, independent of the insurer, is provided to keep the interes ts of the insurer and the insured separate in this \u8220\'3fpotentially conflic t-ridden setting,\u8221\'3f in the case of a malpractice action the interests of the insurer and the insured generally merge. \u8220\'3fAllowing recovery for th e insurer on the basis of the failure of defense counsel to adhere to basic norm s of duty of care would not substantially impair an attorney\rquote s ability to make decisions that require a choice between the best interests of the insurer and the best interests of the insured.\u8221\'3f Rather, absolving a negligent d efense counsel from malpractice liability to the insurer would place the loss fo r the attorney\rquote s misconduct on the insurer without recourse. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 J. Conflicts in Derivative and Class Actions. \par }

} {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 May the attorney for a corporation also represent the officers and directors aga inst a derivative suit? In } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1975107025&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Cannon v. U.S. Acoustics Corp., 398 F. Supp. 209 (N.D. Ill. 1975) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , aff\rquote d in relevant part, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1976145836&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 532 F.2d 1118 (7th Cir. 1976) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , the District Court held that the lawyer should be disqualified from the simult aneous representation, ruling that there was a conflict and that confidences obt ained by the lawyer from one client might be used adversely to another. The hold ing of the case was criticized, see Shipman, Professional Responsibility of the Corporation\rquote s Lawyer, p. 280 (1978), with the author arguing that the law yer should be allowed to defend the officers and directors who relied upon him f or advice and with whom he enjoyed a professional relationship, and with an inde pendent counsel being engaged to defend the corporation. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The Oregon Supreme Court followed Cannon, and not the Shipman reasoning. See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983111699&pubNum=661&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Conduct of Kinsey, 294 Or. 544, 660 P.2d 660 (1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 May the attorney for a class advocate a settlement against a faction of a class? May he represent an objecting faction against co-counsel? The answers are not s imple. In } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_238_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_238_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *238 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 }

{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1986143765&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In Re \u8220\'3fAgent Orange\u8221\'3f Product Liability Litigation, 800 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1986) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , one of the counsel for the class came to disapprove the fairness of a settleme nt he had helped to negotiate and which the district court had approved. Counsel resigned his role on the Plaintiffs\rquote Management Committee and appealed a gainst the settlement. The Court of Appeals denied the motion to disqualify beca use of special considerations applicable to class counsel and the not unusual ph enomenon of diverging interests within a settling class. Class counsel\rquote s duty is to point out the conflicts to the court, and not simply step aside consi stently with the conventional manner of dealing with such conflicts. Judge Arlan Adams\rquote concurring view in } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984154716&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 In re Corn Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, 748 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cert. denied sub nom. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985229674&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Cochrane & Bresnahan v. Plaintiff Class Representatives, 472 U.S. 1008 (1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , cautioning about the special needs where the financial stake of individual cla ss members was low and the need to avoid a wasteful multiplication of costs was great, was followed. The Court of Appeals favored a \u8220\'3fbalancing of the i nterests of the various groups of class members and of the interest of the publi c and the court in achieving a just and expeditious resolutions of the dispute.\ u8221\'3f (slip op. at 5273) \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 A corporate officer, fearing spoliation by the majority that had acquired the co rporation, may consult independent counsel, and that counsel may thereafter repr esent the minority faction in suing the majority and the corporation owned by it . } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1983141160&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Evans v. Artek Systems Corp., 715 F.2d 788 (2d Cir. 1983) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . The issue turns on whether the officer consulted counsel on behalf of the corp oration, in which case he would be disqualified, or on behalf of a faction of th e corporation, in which case he would not be disqualified. The case was remanded

for a hearing on that issue, with the moving party (the party urging disqualifi cation) having a \u8220\'3fheavy burden.\u8221\'3f The case also involved the sh aring with the attorney of a confidential communication received by the officer from counsel for the corporation. The court ruled that although an attorney migh t come into possession of a party\rquote s confidential documents, an } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 attorney } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 } {\i0 \fs20 \cf19 \f2 \chcbpat21 \b1 {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf19 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 client } } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \chcbpat2 \b0 } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 relationship is not necessarily to be inferred from mere access to documents. \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Where plaintiff\rquote s law firm included three attorneys formerly employed by the government who had been connected, in varying degrees, with the government\r quote s defense effort, the Court concluded that disqualification was inappropri ate in view of: (i) effective screening procedures invoked upon } {\i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \b1 {\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_100059_239_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_100059_239_1} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 *239 } } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 learning of the connection; (ii) \u8220\'3f[t]he serious impact disqualificatio n has upon both the litigant, who is denied counsel of his choice, and the firm itself;\u8221\'3f and (iii) [t]he harshness of consequences to former government lawyers\u8221\'3f, all of which \u8220\'3foutweigh[ed] any dubious enhancement in the confidence of the public in the integrity of the legal profession.\u8221\ '3f } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1984127665&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Koller v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038 (D.C. Cir. 1984) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 , decision vacated for lack of appellate jurisdiction, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1985130816&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1

.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 472 U.S. 424 (1985) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . This conclusion was reached notwithstanding the fact that one of the attorneys had been \u8220\'3fbriefly assigned\u8221\'3f to the case while at DOJ and anot her had prepared the government\rquote s jurisdictional brief while at HEW but h ad no involvement in the development or presentation of the defense on the merit s. } {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 The \u8220\'3fappearance of impropriety,\u8221\'3f the Court held, \u8220\'3fres ts on suspicion and rhetoric and is not supported by the actual facts.\u8221\'3f See } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981104452&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. v. United States, 639 F.2d 749 (Ct. Cl. 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 . Cf. } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1980124286&pubNum=350&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_445" }{\fldr slt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Armstrong v. McAlpine, 625 F.2d 433, 445 (2d Cir. 1980) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (en banc) (adapting a \u8220\'3frestrained approach\u8221\'3f to disqualificati on motions, and finding possible impropriety \u8220\'3fsimply too slender a need \u8221\'3f on which to base a disqualification order, but refusing to rule on th e efficacy of \u8220\'3fChinese Wall\u8221\'3f solutions to potential conflicts of interest), vacated, } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981206857&pubNum=780&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 449 U.S. 1106 (1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 ; } {\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin dType=Y&serNum=1981107368&pubNum=345&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1 .0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf5 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Ellen S. v. Rhodes, 507 F. Supp. 734 (S.D. Ohio 1981) }}} {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 (refusing to disqualify counsel representing patients at a public mental health facility in suit against state challenging, inter alia, staff and program reduc tions where counsel was also a member of the facility\rquote s Civilian Advisory Board and alleged to have access to confidential information supplied by defend ant. Because counsel was not a state official or employee, he was not subject to

\u8220\'3fthe strictures of the conflict of interest canons, codes or statutes. \u8221\'3f). \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 April 16, 1993 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li2250 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa0 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 Alvin K. Hellerstein \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj {\i0 \fs20 \sa200 \ul0 \cf1 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb200 C837 ALI-ABA 59 \par } } {\ri0 \i0 \fs20 \cf1 \f2 \li0 \b0 \qj { {\trowd \lastrow \trleft0 \clpadt24 \clpadft3 \clpadl100 \clpadfl3 \clpadr24 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \brdrs \br drw10 \brdrcf20 \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth4320 \cellx4320 \clpadt24 \clpadft3 \clpadl100 \clpadfl3 \clpadr24 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \brdrs \br drw10 \brdrcf20 \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth5760 \cellx10080 \intbl {\ri24 \li24 {\ri24 \i0 \ql \fs16 \cf20 \f2 \li24 \b1 {\i0 \fs16 \sa0 \ul0 \cf20 \strike0 \f2 \b1 \sb0 End of Document \par } } }\i0 \ri24 \fs16 \ql \sa0 \ul0 \cf20 \strike0 \f2 \li24 \b1 \sb0 \intbl \cell \i ntbl {\ri24 \li24 {\ri24 \i0 \fs16 \cf20 \f2 \li24 \qr \b0 {\i0 \fs16 \sa0 \ul0 \cf20 \strike0 \f2 \b0 \sb0 \u169\'3f 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. \par } } }\i0 \ri24 \fs16 \sa0 \ul0 \cf20 \strike0 \f2 \li24 \qr \b0 \sb0 \intbl \cell \r ow }}\par } }\sect }