Your search for ‘McGuireWoods LLP’ returned 3,630 results

Most foreign countries do not extend privilege protection to communications to and from in-house lawyers, so United States companies normally seek to apply U.S. privilege law when discovery disputes in U.S. courts involve overseas communications.

It’s been a busy April ‘round these parts, even if there haven’t been many posts going up.

Among many variations in analyses of the work product rule, courts disagree about whether the doctrine only applies to "documents and tangible things".

Attorney-client privilege issues frequently involve a complicated mixture of fact and law. Three circuit court decisions issued in a three-week period explain the basic approach that most courts take.

Houston law professor D. Theodore Rave's new paper "Settlement, ADR, & Class Action Superiority" (forthcoming from the "Journal of Tort Law") contains an interesting insight about class action practice:

Every court holds that the attorney-client privilege rests on confidentiality.

Courts disagree about the attorney-client privilege protection's applicability to draft documents whose final version will be publicly disclosed.

Last week's Privilege Point used two cases to address federal courts' surprising variations in the work product doctrine's "litigation" and "anticipation" elements.

Courts Apply the Crime-Fraud Exception Every court recognizes that neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine should protect communications that further the client's criminal or fraudulent conduct.

Lawyers and most clients understand that disclosing privileged communications to adversaries waives that delicate protection.

The attorney-client privilege provides absolute but fragile protection. In contrast, work product doctrine protection can be overcome — but offers more robust safety than the privilege.

When withholding documents or communications arguably protected by both the attorney-client privilege and the work product protection, wise litigants consider both.

As discussed in a number of previous Privilege Points, the common interest doctrine can allow separately represented corporations to avoid waiving the privilege when they share protected communications with each other -- but only under very narrow circumstances.

After a decade of bad news for corporations seeking privilege protection for internal investigations, the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion containing good news.

Not surprisingly, many lawyers think the attorney-client privilege (if not the whole world) revolves around them

Under what is commonly called the Sporck doctrine, the opinion work product doctrine can sometimes protect the identity of certain documents that do not themselves deserve intrinsic privilege or work product protection, as long as the adversary also has the documents and the identity could reflect a lawyer's opinion.

One of the most amorphous work product concepts involves the identity of important but intrinsically non-protected witnesses, documents, etc., that a lawyer selects out of a larger universe.

Peters v. Gallun, et al. was filed in the Central District of California on February 18, 2021, claiming civil damages for violations of securities law, breach of contract, and conversion.