We see privilege issues discussed in judicial decisions, legal commentary, and mainstream news. Here is my Monthly Privilege Roundup of interesting privilege issues for December 2017.
→The Google/Uber trade-secrets litigation has produced several privilege-related issues, as I profiled here and here—but nothing like this. The court delayed the trial after the ND Cal. U.S. Attorney revealed a letter (available here) from a former Uber employee claiming that a former Uber in-house attorney instructed employees to mark emails as “privileged” even if they were not seeking legal advice. See Jennifer Williams’ article on the issue, which quotes yours truly, for more information.
→A lawyer for the Trump Transition Team sent a letter, available here, informing House and Senate leaders that the Special Counsel’s Office (Mueller) “unlawfully” received privileged information from the General Services Administration. Mueller’s office denies the allegations. Read the CNN story here. Katie Phang, MSNBC legal analyst (and an excellent trial lawyer) opines that the Transition Team’s privilege concern is a “legal nothingburger.” See Katie’s commentary here.
→President Trump tweeted that he fired General Mike Flynn “because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.” This statement, of course, contradicts the President’s earlier statements More…
We see privilege issues discussed in judicial decisions, legal commentary, and mainstream news. Here is my Monthly Privilege Roundup of interesting privilege issues for November 2017.
→The DC federal court ordered a former lawyer for Paul Manafort and Richard Gates, both indicted by Special Counsel Mueller, to testify before a federal grand jury. The court found that the crime–fraud exception to the attorney–client privilege applied. You may read the opinion here, and an excellent article about the issue from Law360’s Andrew Strickler here.
→According to a New York Times report, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s lawyers have withdrawn from a common–interest agreement with President Trump’s lawyers. Under the agreement, Flynn’s lawyers shared information with President Trump’s attorneys regarding the Special Counsel’s investigation. No more, apparently. Read the story here.
→Interesting Privilege Twist. A Topeka businessman facing criminal charges for bankruptcy fraud plans to call his bankruptcy attorney as an expert witness. The judge allowed it, saying that there is no conflict of interest and that the privilege belongs to the businessman, and he can waive it if he wants. Story here.
→The University of New Mexico allowed the attorney for Paul Krebs, former University of New Mexico Athletic Director who resigned after many questioned his using public funds for a Scotland trip, to review emails for privilege before producing them to the Albuquerque Journal under a public-records request. Is there anything wrong with that? Story here.
→The Utah Attorney General is battling an order to produce a legal opinion regarding rules for the recent election of U.S. Representative John Curtis. More…
We see privilege issues discussed in judicial decisions, legal commentary, and mainstream news. Here is my Monthly Privilege Roundup of interesting privilege issues for October 2017.
→ The Univ. of Louisville, citing attorney–client privilege, refuses to release its GC’s letter to fired AD Tom Jurich outlining the administration’s problems with how Jurich executed a 10-year, $160 million extension of the school’s apparel sponsorship with Adidas. Open-records advocates question whether the privilege actually applies to the letter. You may read the story here.
→ Remember Jodi Arias, convicted killer of her boyfriend? Her criminal defense attorney, now-disbarred Kirk Nurmi, recently published a tell-all book about his representation of Ms. Arias titled “Trapped with Ms. Arias.” Arias, now serving a life sentence, sued her former attorney claiming that he revealed confidential, privilege information in the book. She wants his book proceeds. Story here.
→ Harvey Weinstein reportedly retained attorney Lisa Bloom to investigate the background of women who accused Weinstein of sexual harassment in an effort to discredit them. Bloom, who resigned from the representation, recently commented that she was not aware of the sexual assault allegations, but should have been. Weinstein has now threatened Bloom with a lawsuit, claiming further comments would violate the attorney–client privilege. Stories here and here. More…