Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Attorney Client Privilege — Waiver — Rulemaking

The comment period for Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 502 (Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Waiver By Disclosure) ends on February 15, 2007. It is a very important rule that has four major components:

(1) It articulates a test for determining the extent of subject matter waiver of privileged or work product material that is voluntarily disclosed.

(2) It resolves a split in the Circuits as to whether inadvertent disclosure automatically effects a waiver (no).

(3) It tentatively proposes adopting the principle of selective waiver, under which disclosure to a federal office conducting an investigation does not effect a waiver as to third parties.

(4) It resolves a longstanding quandary by providing that a federal court order governing waiver through disclosure (inadvertent or otherwise) in the course of a litigation is binding on subsequent courts and third parties.

Comments submitted to the Advisory Committee to date can be reviewed at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/2006_Evidence_Rules_Comments_Chart.htm.

With the change in Congress this week, the fate of this Rule -- which must be Congressionally enacted, under the Rules Enabling Act -- is uncertain. But there is reason to believe that the current Congress will also be interested in this issue, as was the Congress just past. (Thus, the Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (signed into law on October 13, 2006) enacted the doctrine of selective waiver of attorney-client privilege in the banking field, providing that disclosure of attorney-client privileged materials to banking authorities — U.S. or foreign — or to credit union regulators no longer effects a waiver as to third parties. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 1828, 1785.) It is well worth taking the time to analyze and comment on Rule 502 because it very well might affect future waiver law. (GPJ)

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

Archives