Tag Archives: attorney/client privilege

Director Denied Attorney/Client Communications–Firm Did Not Represent Whole Board

A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision explained that: the general rule that a director is entitled to communications with counsel for the board has exceptions, but the threshold issue is whether the attorney involved represents the whole board–or just selected board members.  In Gilmore v. Turvo, Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0472-JRS (Del. Ch. Aug. 19, … Continue Reading

Attorney/Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine Again Addressed by Chancery

AM General Holdings LLC v. The Renco Group, Inc., C.A. No. 7639-VCN (Del. Ch. April 18, 2013). A prior Chancery decision in this case was highlighted on these pages at this link. Issue Addressed:  Whether the attorney/client privilege and the work product doctrine are defenses to a motion to compel. Short Answer:  They can be. … Continue Reading

Chancery Addresses Attorney/Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine

JPMorgan Chase & Co. v. American Century Companies, Inc., C.A. No. 6875-VCN (Del. Ch. April 18, 2013). Issue Addressed: Whether the attorney/client privilege and work product doctrine were defenses to a motion to compel? Short Answer:  Yes in part and no in part. Brief Overview This letter decision provides a useful application of both the attorney/client … Continue Reading

Chancery Addresses “At Issue” Exception to Attorney/Client Privilege

In re Comverge, Inc., Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7368-VCP (Del. Ch. April 10, 2013). Issue Presented: Whether the attorney-client privilege was a defense to a motion to compel documents. Short Answer:  Yes, under the circumstances of this case. Summary of Analysis The court observed that under Court of Chancery Rule 26(b)(1), the “parties may obtain … Continue Reading

Delaware Court Allows Service by Email on Former CEO in China of Delaware Entity

In re Heckman Corporation Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 10-378-LPS-MPT  (D.Del. Nov. 22, 2011), read opinion here. This decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dealt with the issue of whether former counsel for a former corporate officer could be forced to assist in serving process on their former client. The Court in … Continue Reading

New Articles on Delaware Law, re: Attorney/Client Privilege and Disclosures Regarding Fairness Opinions

The Business Lawyer, an ABA publication, arrived in the mail today with two articles that should be of interest to those who follow Delaware corporate law. The foregoing link to the online version does not yet have the current issue, which the cover announces as Volume 66, Issue 4, but two articles, at pages 901 and 943, … Continue Reading

Chancery Confirms and Clarifies Delaware Law on Privilege Logs and How to Avoid Waiver by Insufficient Detail in a Privilege Log

Klig v. Deloitte LLP, C.A. No. 4993-VCL (Del. Ch. Sept. 7, 2010), read opinion here. Introduction This 22-page opinion is must reading for any attorney who: (i) seeks to maintain an attorney-client privilege in Delaware litigation; (ii) needs to prepare a privilege log under Delaware law; (iii) practices in the Delaware Court of Chancery; and/or … Continue Reading

Chancery Decides “Dueling” Motions to Compel in Rohm and Haas v. Dow Chemical Suit

Rohm and Haas Co. v. The Dow Chemical Co., (Del. Ch., Feb. 26, 2009), read opinion here. This is the latest in a series of pre-trial rulings on discovery disputes in this expedited matter. For prior rulings in this case highlighted on this blog, see here. This letter decision involved three discovery issues. A Motion to … Continue Reading

Electronic Discovery Lesson: Waiver of Attorney/Client Privilege and Non-Core Work Product for Attorney Interviews with Custodians to Establish that Failure to Preserve ESI Was Inadvertent

In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation, 2008 WL 2310288 (D.Del. 2008), read opinion here. This is an opinion that should be read by anyone who wants to, or needs to, keep up to date on electronic discovery (EDD) pitfalls (read: all business litigators). The backdrop to this particular dispute in the litigation involved the inadvertent failure to … Continue Reading
LexBlog