Based on a hypothetical situation in which an attorney – mistakenly believing that the existing clawback agreement is broader than it is and would allow recovery of inadvertently produced material – agrees with opposing counsel that his client’s database could be searched with search terms that the opposing counsel suggests. Attorney does not review material […]
ABA Journal (April 2014 issue) The full text is available at: http://www.abajournal…
Originally published as Ethics Watch: Technology and Ethics (“Technethics”): 2013 in Review, South Carolina Lawyer 14 (March 2014) In past years I have written a year-in-review Ethics Watch column, covering significant South Carolina ethics decisions and opinions, along with ABA Formal Opinions issued during the year. Because technology is playing an increasingly important role in the […]
ABA Journal (March 28, 2014) Author describes how “In-house counsel have historically faced greater hurdles than their outside counterparts in proving that their client communications are confidential. And advancements in legal technology have made in-house counsel’s lives even more difficult.” The full text is available at: http://www.abajournal…
In In re Information Management Services Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 8168-VCL, slip op. (Del. Ch. Ct. Sept. 5, 2013), the Delaware Court of Chancery court dealt with a dispute between two families, the Burtons and the Lakes, that each owned 50% of IMF. The Burtons accused the Lakes of breach of fiduciary duty in management […]
52 Hofstra Law Review 175 (2013) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2378492##; Chapman University Law Research Paper No. 13-17. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2378492 From the author’s abstract “When lawyers receive a document — whether hard copy or an electronic document — that they know the adversary sent them inadvertently (for example, a fax or email mistakenly sent to an adversary […]
Several courts have held that privilege may be waived when a client sends an email to counsel on the client’s business network, where the business has notified the employee that the network may be monitored or accessed by the employer, and that employees should have no expectation of privacy in communications sent or received on […]
The court held that a lawyer who received inadvertently produced documents is ethically permitted to submit them to the trial court under seal. From the Opinion: “Unlike the court of appeals, we do not find that a receiving party who presents the information under seal to the court thereby violates Rule 26.1(f)(2) by using the information […]
The court held that the attorney-client privilege does not protect emails between a company and its unlicensed foreign senior in-house lawyer. From the Opinion: “If the Plaintiffs are correct that Dutch law applies, the Boonstra communications plainly are not privileged. Although Dutch law affords a ‘legal professional privilege’ to licensed in-house counsel, there is no recognized […]
2013 Journal of the Professional Lawyer 85 (2013) The full text can be downloaded at: http://papers.ssrn…