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
© 2024 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 AllSemiconductor Component Maker Accused of Deceiving Investors About Market Downturn, Export Curbs
3 minute readRecent FTC Cases Against Auto Dealers Suggest Regulators Are Keeping Foot on Accelerator
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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