Thomas E. Spahn


Articles:

  • Wednesday, June 6, 2018
    In a previous article on p. 17 of the May/June 2018 issue, I summarized two recent cases in which courts held that communications between corporations and their consultants were not subject to attorney-client privilege. However, some cases take a more favorable view. 
  • Thursday, May 10, 2018
    The frightening "at issue" variety of implied waiver can destroy privilege protection if litigants affirmatively seek some advantage by (among other things) relying on their actions' "good faith." If the litigants sought legal advice about the actions that they claim to have been taken in "good faith," many courts...
  • Monday, April 2, 2018
    The attorney-client privilege that protects confidential communications between clients and their lawyers may extend to consultants if they act as the “functional equivalent” of corporate employees. Otherwise, most courts take a very narrow view. In Durling v. Papa John’s International, Inc. (2018), Papa John’s relied on a third-...
  • Tuesday, March 6, 2018
    Internal investigations merit privilege protection if their primary motivation is legal advice, and work product protection if primarily motivated by anticipated litigation. The U.S. District Court in Oregon, however, recently rejected a company’s privilege and work product claims arising from an internal data breach investigation. Premera Blue Cross...
  • Sunday, January 14, 2018
  • Sunday, January 31, 2016
    Many lawyers have justifiably cheered the District of Columbia Circuit’s couplet of decisions in 2014 and 2015 favoring Kellogg Brown & Root’s attorney-client privilege claims. Lawyers defending their corporate clients’ privilege protection should take heart that two separate three-judge panels of the D.C. Circuit favored the corporate...