65 Cited authorities

Upjohn Co. v. United States
449 U.S. 383 (1981) Cited 4,212 times 128 Legal Analyses
Holding that communications between corporate counsel and a corporation's employees made for the purpose of rendering legal advice are protected by the attorney-client privilege
Fisher v. United States
425 U.S. 391 (1976) Cited 2,061 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that act of producing evidence may, in some circumstances, trigger Fifth Amendment safeguards
United States v. Zolin
491 U.S. 554 (1989) Cited 1,110 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that in camera review may be used to probe crime-fraud challenges to attorney-client privilege
In re Teleglobe Comms
493 F.3d 345 (3d Cir. 2007) Cited 447 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that judicial admissions "must be statements of fact that require evidentiary proof, not statements of legal theories"
Spectrum Sys. Int'l Corp. v. Chem. Bank
78 N.Y.2d 371 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 590 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the document at issue was exempt from discovery where "the narration relate[d] and integrate[d] the facts with the law firm's assessment of the client's legal position"
Westinghouse v. Republic of the Phil.
951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991) Cited 506 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding mandamus available to review order compelling production of documents claimed to be privileged but unavailable to review order upholding work-product doctrine
In re Qwest Commc'ns Intern. Inc.
450 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2006) Cited 241 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party waived work-product protection when it tuned over privileged documents to the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the agencies' investigations into the party's business practices, and declining to recognize a selective waiver rule
United States v. BDO Seidman, LLP
492 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2007) Cited 219 times 4 Legal Analyses
Finding that to establish the crime-fraud exception, the movant must "'present prima facie evidence that gives color to the charge by showing some foundation in fact.'"
U.S. v. Schwimmer
892 F.2d 237 (2d Cir. 1989) Cited 334 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the attorney-client privilege extends to the circumstance where multiple clients share a common interest about a legal matter and that the communication was given in confidence and the client reasonably understood it to be confidential and explaining that the protection afforded by the joint-defense privilege "extends to communications made in confidence to an accountant assisting lawyers who are conducting a joint defense on behalf of the communicating clients"
United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
642 F.2d 1285 (D.C. Cir. 1980) Cited 400 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an appeal should be permitted because the nonparty appellant "was not the object of the document demand and could therefore not possibly refuse disclosure and undergo a contempt citation as a means to appeal"
Rule 502 - Lawyer-Client Privilege
Del. R. Evid. 502 Cited 103 times
(a)Definitions. As used in this rule: (1) A "client" is a person, public officer or corporation, association or other organization or entity, either public or private, who is rendered professional legal services by a lawyer, or who consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional legal services from the lawyer. For the purposes of this Rule, "client shall include, without limitation, officers, directors, and employees of (a) any business entity that is organized under the laws of this State

Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al., Appellants,v.Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., Respondents, Bank of America Corp., Defendant.

65 Cited authorities

Holding that communications between corporate counsel and a corporation's employees made for the purpose of rendering legal advice are protected by the attorney-client privilege

Holding that act of producing evidence may, in some circumstances, trigger Fifth Amendment safeguards

Holding that in camera review may be used to probe crime-fraud challenges to attorney-client privilege

Holding that judicial admissions "must be statements of fact that require evidentiary proof, not statements of legal theories"

Holding that the document at issue was exempt from discovery where "the narration relate[d] and integrate[d] the facts with the law firm's assessment of the client's legal position"

Holding mandamus available to review order compelling production of documents claimed to be privileged but unavailable to review order upholding work-product doctrine

Holding that a party waived work-product protection when it tuned over privileged documents to the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the agencies' investigations into the party's business practices, and declining to recognize a selective waiver rule

Finding that to establish the crime-fraud exception, the movant must "'present prima facie evidence that gives color to the charge by showing some foundation in fact.'"

Holding that an appeal should be permitted because the nonparty appellant "was not the object of the document demand and could therefore not possibly refuse disclosure and undergo a contempt citation as a means to appeal"