Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Bell Keeps Tolling
Selective waiver of the attorney-client privilege is a lonely doctrine indeed. Since the Eighth Circuit first adopted it in the 1977 Diversified Industries case, the notion that a litigant may disclose privileged material to government enforcers without waiving the privilege as to third parties has hardly won fans among federal courts of appeal. Most recently, in June, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit weighed in on the viability of selective waiver. The In Re: Qwest Communications Int'l decision is precisely what advocates for selective waiver needed least; it is a comprehensive evaluation, and rejection, of nearly all of the cogent arguments advanced in favor of the doctrine.
The Tenth Circuit's back-to-basics approach to the privilege and work product doctrine is essential reading for corporate counsel faced with the unenviable decision about what to disclose 'voluntarily' to government enforcers or investigators. While it was careful to focus its reasoning on the record before it, the court fundamentally determined that selective waiver is inconsistent with, and fails to promote, the original objectives of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.
The Qwest Communications decision leaves the Eighth Circuit as the only federal circuit embracing outright selective waiver of the privilege. It is safe to say the Tenth Circuit's decision extinguishes any hope that federal common law will provide an easy outlet for the huge pressure to which federal enforcers routinely subject the privilege.
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.