WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IN-HOUSE COUNSEL TAKES THE STAND. James Rollin Miller, Esq. Eric B. Liebman , Esq. Burkeley N. Riggs, Esq. Attorneys, Moye White LLP and Gregory Ruegsegger, Esq. Vice-President & General Counsel, Furniture Row Companies. Presented by. Poll the Audience. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
James Rollin Miller, Esq.Eric B. Liebman, Esq.Burkeley N. Riggs, Esq.Attorneys, Moye White LLP andGregory Ruegsegger, Esq.Vice-President & General Counsel, Furniture Row Companies
Under federal common law, the essential elements of the attorney-client privilege are: (1) where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal advisor in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor, (8) except if the protection be waived.
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), defined “attorney work product” as covering both “tangible and intangible” information developed by an attorney in anticipation of litigation.
The Hickman work product doctrine was “partially codified” in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), which protects “documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation … by [a party’s] representative.”
The joint venture agreement is ambiguous about whether Robert Stevens’ non-compete agreement was assigned to the joint venture.
Mr. Gregory A. Ruegsegger is about to take the stand to testify that it was the intent of the parties to assign all non-competition agreements to the joint venture.
The lawyers are arguing over whether the attorney client privilege has been waived by virtue of the claims and defenses in the lawsuit.
“Abbott Laboratories Inc. and Costello Chemical Co. each hereby assign to Abbott and Costello Enterprises any Employment Agreement for any employee responsible for working on the Anti-Aging Drug.”
When an attorney acts as a negotiator or business agent for the client, the confidential communications between them in preparation for the negotiation are discoverable.
A party is treated as having waived its attorney client privilege if “(1) assertion of the privilege was a result of some affirmative acts, such as filing a lawsuit, by the asserting party; (2) through this affirmative act the asserting party put the protected information at issue by making it relevant to the case; and (3) application of the privilege would have denied the opposing party access to information vital to his defense. Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.RD. 574, 581 (E.D. Wash. 1975).
Memo from Mr. Young to Mr. Ruegsegger: Greg,We need to get this joint venture before I leave for the rest of the year on vacation. I am granting you the authority to get this deal done and negotiate it for the best interest of the company. I know that you have expressed some concern for the legal implications for not doing due diligence and that we need to protect the company. However, we need to get this deal done by Dec. 22 and we will tie up any loose ends after the deal is signed.
Waiver by Preparation or Refreshing Recollection of a Witness:
Waiver by Preparation or Refreshing Recollection of a Witness: Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that an adverse party is entitled to have produced, cross-examined, and introduced into evidence, any writing used by the witnesses to refresh his recollection, either while testifying or during testimony, “if the court determines that it is necessary in the interest of justice.” Baily v. Meister Brau, Inc., 57 F.RD. 11, 13 (N.D. Ill. 1972).
July 10, 2012 Email from Mr. Ruegsegger to Mr.Young
Mr. Young:I am concerned as I indicated last December 2010 of our lack of due diligence with respect to the Joint Venture. Robert Stephens and other are competing against the Joint Venture and we will need to enforce their non-competes. We need to talk about Section 17(a) of the agreement before you leave the company for good, as I am worried that your successor will not be able to testify as to the intent of the corporation.
But see: A work product document used to refresh a witness's recollection does not fall into the realm of Rule 612, and does not have to be produced because the court determined that “in the interest of justice” language of Rule 612(2) is synonymous with the doctrine that disclosure of work product is allowed only when a party shows substantial need and could not obtain the information elsewhere. Medtronic Xomed v. Gyrus ENT LLC, 2006 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 17202, at * 13 (M.D. Fla. March 27, 2006).
LESSON 4 Waiver by Use of an Attorney as a Witness
When an attorney is called as an expert or fact witness, the privilege is deemed waived. Plaintiff has waived the
attorney-client privilege between himself and his attorney by indicating to the Court the intent to call his attorney as a fact witness. The defendant will need to
know all of the information forming the basis for the opinions of the attorney.
Rutgard v. Haynes, 185 F.Rd. 596, 600-01 (S.D. 1999).
Failure to assert the privilege at the first opportunity may result in waiver. Nquyen v. Exel Corp.,
197 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1999). Where no objection was interposed to questions concerning advice given by attorneys and a partial answer was provided, waiver occurred because of (1) failure to assert
Once Waived – Always Waived: Once a waiver of the attorney client privilege occurs, the privilege is generally treated as relinquished for all purposes thereafter. United States v. Krasnov, 143 F. Supp. 184, 190-91 (E.D. Pa. 1956).
Even in subsequent proceedings -- Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 80 F.R.D. 718, 721-23 (N.D. Ill. 1978).