Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to replace Justice Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court, recently authored an important attorney–client privilege opinion for corporate legal counsel.
Judge Kavanaugh held that the privilege covered a General Counsel’s communications involving legal and business issues because “one of the significant purposes of [her] communications was to obtain or provide legal advice,” with an emphasis on “one.” Federal Trade Comm’n v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2018 WL 3028972 (CADC June 19, 2018). You may read the decision here.
A GC’s Communications
In 2008, Boehringer, a pharmaceutical company, negotiated a patent-infringement settlement with generic-drug manufacturer Barr Pharmaceuticals. The agreement was a so-called “reverse-payment” settlement because the patent holder (Boehringer) paid the alleged infringer rather than the other way around.
The FTC, which monitors reverse-payment settlements to ensure compliance with antitrust laws, issued a subpoena to Boehringer requesting, in part, communications involving Boehringer’s General Counsel. The requested communications allowed the GC “to analyze and navigate the treacherous antitrust issues surrounding reverse payment settlements,” but also reflected her communications with Boehringer executives regarding a possible settlement. Boehringer argued that the attorney-client privilege protected the entirety of the communications.
Noting that the attorney–client privilege “applies whether the attorney is in-house counsel or outside counsel,” Judge Kavanaugh recognized that “[t]he application of the attorney–client privilege can become more complicated when a communication has multiple purposes—in particular, a legal purpose and a business purpose.”
Judge Kavanaugh found that More…
In a ruling that may puzzle in-house legal departments, the Arizona USDC ruled that the attorney–client privilege did not cover in-house attorneys’ handwritten notations on non-privileged documents. The court’s primary reason was that the notations “were [n]ever communicated to anyone.” Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Viad Corp., 2016 WL 4703340 (D. Ariz. Sept. 8, 2016). You may read the decision here.
In this federal-question case, Greyhound claims that Viad is responsible for environmental clean-up costs on properties that Viad sold to Greyhound. During discovery, Viad produced a set of non-privileged documents, but redacted notations on these documents made by one or more of its in-house lawyers. More…
In an interesting situation, the USDC for the District of Kansas ruled that the corporate attorney–client privilege protected emails between a university official and one of its in-house lawyers. And it was the in-house lawyer’s methodical, well-crafted affidavit that persuaded the court. Klaassen v. Atkinson, 2016 WL 3881334 (D. Kan. July 18, 2016). You may read the decision here.
The University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC) conducted a due-process hearing against a tenured medical professor for unprofessional behavior. A KUMC in-house lawyer served as the prosecutorial attorney, and Dr. Steven Stites ultimately issued a June 12, 2012 letter publicly censuring the physician for his conduct. More…