2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. How Do Courts Apply the "Primary Purpose" Privilege Standard?: Part II

    McGuireWoods LLPThomas SpahnMarch 4, 2016

    Last week's Privilege Point described a court's rejection of an in-house lawyer's affidavit swearing that a client's employees' communications to him sought legal advice. FTC v. AbbVie, Inc., Civ. A. No. 14-5151, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166723 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2015). The obvious lesson is that corporate employees should explicitly seek legal advice in their communications.

  2. How Do Courts Apply the "Primary Purpose" Privilege Standard?: Part I

    McGuireWoods LLPThomas SpahnFebruary 26, 2016

    One might think that companies' lawyers can simply file affidavits confirming under oath that clients' communications to them sought legal advice, and that their communication to clients contained or reflected their legal advice. In FTC v. AbbVie, Inc., Civ. A. No. 14-5151, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166723 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2015), the court dealt with three documents corporate employees sent to an in-house lawyer. The court rejected privilege protection for all the documents.