A Philadelphia judge said Wolf Block should be compelled to answer certain discovery requests by a former client for 30 years’ worth of prenuptial agreements the firm drafted, as well as to produce certain communication with the firm’s insurer related to the client’s malpractice suit.
In explaining to the Superior Court why his discovery rulings in Potamkin v. Wolf Block should be upheld, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Allan L. Tereshko said there is no attorney-client privilege that would protect communications from a private attorney of the insured to the insurance company. He also said the firm would not be forced to turn over any confidential client communications, as the discovery order allowed for redaction. He further disagreed with now-defunct Wolf Block that any of its prenuptial agreements were protected by the attorney work-product privilege, as only final drafts would be turned over, not preliminary drafts that could reveal attorneys’ thought processes.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
