How well do you know attorney-client privilege?
Test your knowledge with these 10 scenarios
June 30, 2012 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
Several years ago, I found an online game that tested an in-house counsel's understanding of the attorney-client privilege as it applied to in-house counsel. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate an update to the game, so I thought that I would create one for you. This column presents 10 scenarios involving application of the attorney-client privilege, and my next column will present the answers. Together, these two columns should provide you and your team with a self-test on the attorney-client privilege.
I have isolated a single issue in each scenario. Do not worry about the work-product doctrine as this exercise is about the privilege. In each scenario, assume that you are an in-house counsel and that the subject document is being sought in litigation.
1. You investigate a hotline allegation that an employee was being harassed. You conclude that the allegations are baseless and draft a memorandum reflecting your legal analysis and conclusions.
2. Assume that the memorandum referred to in scenario 1 included key factual findings that you considered when developing your legal conclusions.
3. Assume that you send the memorandum in scenario 1 to the company's 60 human resources managers.
4. You have been involved in rendering legal advice regarding a matter about which litigation ensued. Unbeknownst to anyone at your company, your bar membership has lapsed and you are not licensed in any jurisdiction. In the litigation, the opposing party seeks the production of your memoranda.
5. One of your emails to your business partner is the subject of a discovery request. The email contains the following: “The information contained in this email is privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited.”
6. You are asked to present your litigation strategy and risk assessment to the company's public relations firm that is helping with press inquiries regarding the litigation. The opposing party is now seeking your slide deck.
7. An employee, who watched your presentation at a meeting where you encouraged workers to proactively consult you with all their legal and compliance questions, visits your office without an appointment. He hands you a document titled “Price Fixing at Our Company.” It is marked: “Attorney-Client Communication.” In a subsequent investigation, the government seeks production of the document.
8. With respect to the employee memorandum described in scenario 7, the company agrees to disclose the document to the government. Now, it is being demanded in companion civil litigation.
9. Based upon the employee's price-fixing memorandum described in scenario 7, your company's in-house counsel in Belgium evaluates local compliance with the competition laws and shares his findings with the company's European executive staff.
10. Because of your antitrust skills, you have been asked to also serve as the company's vice president of distribution networks where you will have responsibility for developing a distribution program. You have developed a presentation that contains your distribution design and the legal risks associated with it. You use your business title in the presentation.
Look for the analysis in my next column. In the meantime, send me your comments.
Brian Martin is SVP and general counsel of KLA-Tencor Corp. Send your comments and best ethics practices to him at [email protected].
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInside Track: Cooley's Modest Proposal to Make Executives Safer
Trending Stories
- 1January Petitions Press High Court on Guns, Birth Certificate Sex Classifications
- 2'A Waste of Your Time': Practice Tips From Judges in the Oakland Federal Courthouse
- 3Judge Extends Tom Girardi's Time in Prison Medical Facility to Feb. 20
- 4Supreme Court Denies Trump's Request to Pause Pending Environmental Cases
- 5‘Blitzkrieg of Lawlessness’: Environmental Lawyers Decry EPA Spending Freeze
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250