The differing waiver rules governing the fragile attorney-client privilege and the robust work product doctrine protection predictably create stark differences...

Large companies increasingly turn to litigation funding as a means of financing commercial litigation.

Overworked judges assessing possible privilege protection for the increasing volume of often-cryptic emails withheld from production understandably look for a client's explicit request for legal advice from a lawyer.

Clients relying on an investigation's result to gain some advantage understandably trigger a subject matter waiver. But some courts recognize that those clients may still claim privilege for some related communications.

Most other countries do not permit the type of intrusive discovery U.S. companies face. But occasionally discovery in U.S. litigation seeks communications to or from the U.S., or even purely overseas communications -- requiring U.S. courts

Federal courts have severely curtailed the availability of interlocutory review of district courts' denial of privilege or work product claims.

In Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981), the court interpreted federal common law as extending privilege protection to communications between a company's lawyer and any level of employee, if that employee has facts the lawyer needs when advising the corporate client.

Because work product protection only applies at certain times, clients must be able to identify the exact moment that they first anticipated litigation.

In nearly every situation, disclosing privileged communications to any third party renders the communications accessible to all other third parties.

In some situations, disclosure or reliance on privileged communications or protected work product triggers a "subject matter waiver" — requiring the owner's disclosure of additional related communications or work product.

Most lawyers correctly look to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) as defining the scope of work product protection in federal courts.

Every court agrees that a litigant withholding documents must carry the burden of proving some protection.

Numerous Privilege Points have described cases concluding that advertising agencies are outside privilege protection but inside work product protection...

The U.S. Secret Service's most recent scandal spectacularly illustrates the need to enforce restrictions on access to databases housing confidential information.

This summer, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") will once again tighten the belt on entities that offer financial products and services when another round of amendments...

Hotels possess a treasure trove of private information about their guests.

On March 23, 2015, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe approved a social media password privacy bill (H.B. 2081) that limits employers access to employees' and job applicants' personal social media accounts.

On Oct. 3, 2023, the city of Alexandria released its draft Zoning for Housing-related amendments for community review.

One of the greatest risks to corporate clients' privilege protection is their executives' and even their lawyers' misunderstanding about the availability of privilege protection...

On Oct. 10, 2023, the Arlington County Board held a working session with economic development staff to discuss potential policy changes to facilitate office-residential projects.