Attorney-Client Privilege

Have you ever thought that being an in-house attorney will insulate you from being deposed as a witness??  Not so fast!  The role of in-house counsel in the employment context has expanded, the legal landscape is changing, and, now more than ever, in-house attorneys are being deposed as fact witnesses.  The increase in deposing in-house counsel stems, in part, from a failure to take the proper precautions to avoid being deposed.  In-house counsel’s participation in internal investigations, layoffs, and discipline and termination decisions increases the risk of being deposed.  But there are ways to minimize that risk, particularly by recognizing the different roles of in-house counsel and how acting in a business capacity can jeopardize claims of privilege protection.  This is the second in a series of employment law blogs wherein Reed Smith will offer practical tips on how in-house counsel can avoid being deposed.  To see Practical Tip No. 1, click here.
Continue Reading In-House Counsel: How To Avoid Being Deposed, Part 2

This post was written by Kyle Bahr and Efrem Grail.

A recent Third Circuit opinion undercuts the attorney-client privilege, especially in federal Grand Jury investigations of companies and individuals. Under the new precedent, there is no way to immediately challenge a court order invading the protections of the attorney-client privilege without first suffering a judicial

This post was also written by Lucas Liben and George M. Linge.

This may be one of the abiding truths of the 21st Century: the pervasiveness of modern communication technology has revolutionized how business is conducted, law is practiced, and life is lived. Nevertheless, courts remain protective of communications between an attorney and

As employers seek to avoid substantial exposure for alleged violations of wage and hour laws, including the continuing flood of class actions, many are asking outside counsel to review or audit their pay practices so that any problems can be fixed to minimize such risks. In a welcome development, the California Supreme Court recently rejected