The attorney-client privilege has fittingly been referred to as “the most revered of our common-law privileges,” as the court held in Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvania, 65 A.3d 361, 368 (Pa. 2013). Federal and state courts alike recognize that the privilege is “rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust” in the attorney-client relationship, and that it is, in fact, “inextricably linked to the very integrity and accuracy of the fact-finding process,” as the court held in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10 (1996).
The attorney work-product doctrine is equally venerable. That privilege, codified in Pennsylvania at Rule 4003.3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that “discovery shall not include disclosure of the mental impressions of a party’s attorney or his or her conclusions, opinions, memoranda, notes or summaries, legal research or legal theories.” Opinion work product is protected in order to provide a “privileged area” within which a lawyer “can analyze and prepare his client’s case,” as the court held in Lepley v. Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas, 393 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 1978).
This content has been archived.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]
