The South Berwyn, Ill., School District faced a civil lawsuit over charges a teacher molested students. The district brought in Sidley Austin to conduct an internal investigation and provide legal advice. During the discovery stage of the lawsuit, students sought any findings or documents from the Sidley investigation, but the firm refused, citing attorney-client and work product privilege. A district court ordered the firm to turn over the documents, reasoning that it was hired to conduct an investigation, not give legal representation.

Recently the 7th Circuit reversed and sided with Sidley, ruling that communications and documents it generated during the investigation are subject to work product privilege, even though Sidley does not represent the school district in the civil action.

The court cited the law firm's engagement letter, noting that the district hired the firm not only for the investigation but to “provide legal services in connection with the specific representation.” It also noted that Sidley prepared investigation notes “with an eye toward” litigation.

To read the full story from the Wisconsin Law Journal, click here.

Click here to read InsideCounsel coverage of a similar situation in a corporate context.

The South Berwyn, Ill., School District faced a civil lawsuit over charges a teacher molested students. The district brought in Sidley Austin to conduct an internal investigation and provide legal advice. During the discovery stage of the lawsuit, students sought any findings or documents from the Sidley investigation, but the firm refused, citing attorney-client and work product privilege. A district court ordered the firm to turn over the documents, reasoning that it was hired to conduct an investigation, not give legal representation.

Recently the 7th Circuit reversed and sided with Sidley, ruling that communications and documents it generated during the investigation are subject to work product privilege, even though Sidley does not represent the school district in the civil action.

The court cited the law firm's engagement letter, noting that the district hired the firm not only for the investigation but to “provide legal services in connection with the specific representation.” It also noted that Sidley prepared investigation notes “with an eye toward” litigation.

To read the full story from the Wisconsin Law Journal, click here.

Click here to read InsideCounsel coverage of a similar situation in a corporate context.