48 Cited authorities

Upjohn Co. v. United States
449 U.S. 383 (1981) Cited 4,202 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 2,055 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that act of producing evidence may, in some circumstances, trigger Fifth Amendment safeguards
Branzburg v. Hayes
408 U.S. 665 (1972) Cited 1,806 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that government need not “demonstrate some ‘compelling need’ for a newsman's testimony”
Spectrum Sys. Int'l Corp. v. Chem. Bank
78 N.Y.2d 371 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 586 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"
In re Von Bulow
828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987) Cited 364 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that party implicitly waived his attorney-client privilege when his attorney published privileged material in a book, and the client assisted in promoting the book, as to the matters discussed in the book
Matter of Priest v. Hennessy
51 N.Y.2d 62 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 370 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that no attorney-client relationship had been shown to exist between attorneys and third parties who had paid for the representation of certain of the attorneys' clients
Rossi v. Blue Cross
73 N.Y.2d 588 (N.Y. 1989) Cited 268 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding attorney-client privilege does not apply to communications concerning business matters
In re Santa Fe Int'l Corp.
272 F.3d 705 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 168 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "party asserting a privilege exemption from discovery bears the burden of demonstrating its applicability"
United States v. McPartlin
595 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir. 1979) Cited 265 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the privilege can apply where different lawyers represent clients who have only "some" interests in common
Waller v. Fin. Corp. of Am.
828 F.2d 579 (9th Cir. 1987) Cited 204 times
Holding that a non-settling defendant generally lacks standing to object to a settlement unless he/she can show legal prejudice

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

48 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 government need not “demonstrate some ‘compelling need’ for a newsman's testimony”

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 that party implicitly waived his attorney-client privilege when his attorney published privileged material in a book, and the client assisted in promoting the book, as to the matters discussed in the book

Holding that no attorney-client relationship had been shown to exist between attorneys and third parties who had paid for the representation of certain of the attorneys' clients

Holding attorney-client privilege does not apply to communications concerning business matters

Holding that the "party asserting a privilege exemption from discovery bears the burden of demonstrating its applicability"

Holding that the privilege can apply where different lawyers represent clients who have only "some" interests in common

Holding that a non-settling defendant generally lacks standing to object to a settlement unless he/she can show legal prejudice