Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Pitfalls of the Attorney-Client Privilege
The attorney-client privilege is fundamental. It protects communications: 1) made in confidence; 2) by a client; 3) to an attorney; 4) for the purposes of securing legal advice or assistance. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2 F.4th 1339, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021). However, its impenetrability is not absolute. Recent highly publicized criminal investigations and trials reinforce that the upsurge in investigations has led to increased scrutiny of these privileged communications.
The Crime-Fraud Exception
The attorney-client privilege does not protect communications made "in furtherance of a crime or fraud." provided that: 1) a prima facie showing is made that the client engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct, or planning such conduct; and 2) the attorney's assistance was obtained, knowingly or not, in furtherance of the criminal or fraudulent activity. U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989) (upholding in camera review when crime/fraud exception is alleged). A key component is that the privileged communication must "further" a crime or fraud.
The crime/fraud exception has received renewed notoriety recently. A few months ago, in Eastman v. Thompson, No. 8:22-cv-00099 (C.D. Cal. Order re Privilege of Documents issued Mar. 28, 2022), the Select Committee (Committee) for the U.S. House of Representatives requested allegedly privileged emails by former Chapman University law professor and Trump attorney John Eastman in connection with the January 6 investigation. Finding that it was "more likely than not" that Trump "corruptly attempted to obstruct" the electoral vote count at the Jan. 6, 2021 Joint Session of Congress with Eastman, the federal district court invoked the crime/fraud exception. The result was that virtually all disputed documents were disclosed. The crime/fraud exception does not require the attorney, here, Eastman, to be charged with any criminal acts although news reports referred to his about central role.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?