Your search for ‘McGuireWoods’ returned 3,654 results

Unlike work product protection, attorney-client privilege protection normally requires a "communication" between a client and a lawyer.

All but a handful of courts find that companies disclosing privileged communications or protected work product to the government waive both of those protections.

Facts and events normally do not deserve work product protection. But a lawyer's careful selection of such facts or important events sometimes may reflect his or her strategic assessment...

Separately represented clients sometimes may avoid the normal waiver implications of sharing privileged communications by entering into a common interest agreement...

The attorney-client privilege only protects communications primarily motivated by the client's need for legal advice. It should go without saying that simply "cc'ing" a lawyer on an email does not satisfy this demanding standard.

Several courts have adopted a nonsensical principle that, as one court put it, "[w]hen documents are prepared for dissemination to third parties...

In most situations, any jointly represented client can access the files of the lawyer who represents the joint clients.

Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows corporations' adversaries to insist that the corporation select a spokesman to provide binding testimony about designated topics.

Attorney-client privilege protection depends on content, and the key issue normally involves distinguishing between primarily legal and primarily business advice.

Last week's Privilege Point noted that states adopt their attorney client privilege protection principles in different places.

In most situations, clients and their lawyers intend to maintain forever the confidentiality of their privileged communications.

The last two Privilege Points described ways in which the work product doctrine provides less protection than the attorney-client privilege.

Although lawyers understandably focus mostly on the privilege that they enjoy when communicating with their clients, other professionals...

Relying on traditional case law emphasizing the importance of keeping privileged communications confidential, courts examining widespread intra-corporate sharing of privileged communications sometimes conclude that such widespread circulation demonstrates that the communications were not primarily motivated by legal issues and therefore do not deserve privilege protection.

Most courts recognize the abstract principle that lawyers' communications to their clients deserve privilege protection only if the communication contains or otherwise reflects client confidences.

Under what is called the von Bulow doctrine, most courts hold that a client's disclosure of privileged communications outside a judicial setting does not trigger a subject matter waiver, and thus does not require the client to disclose additional privileged communications on the same topic.

Lawyers must be more precise when justifying the withholding of protected documents in litigation.

Companies facing ongoing or threatened litigation must sometimes estimate their likely or possible financial exposure — for internal purposes...