The police arrested Stevenson and would not permit him to communicate directly with his attorney. Stevenson asked his longtime friend and confidant, Sisyphus, to convey to his attorney that the attorney should not permit the police to search Stevenson's home. Later, the prosecution calls the friend to testify about the contents of the message he related from Stevenson to his attorney. The attorney claims this information is privileged. How should the court rule?

A client who spoke only Spanish hired a local attorney who spoke English and no other languages. The client used an interpreter to communicate an otherwise privileged message to the attorney. The interpreter was an acquaintance of the client. The opposing party later tried to have the interpreter testify at trial about the contents of the conversation he interpreted. The attorney objected that the information falls under the protection of attorney-client privilege. Is the attorney correct?

An attorney agreed to represent an underage client in a legal matter. The client was fifteen years old, and the youth's parents were present at the consultations and other meetings with the attorney. Would the presence of the parents during a confidential communications between the attorney and the underage client waive the protection of attorney-client privilege for the conversation?

An accountant advised Stevenson to consult a lawyer about a legal problem involving complex questions of tax accounting. Professor Stevenson is easily distractble, and he does not fully understand the nature of the accounting questions, and he asks his accounting to accompany him to a consultation with his attorney so that the accountant can explain the nature of Stevenson's legal matter to the attorney. The accountant helps to explain the attorney's legal advice in business or accounting terms more understandable to Stevenson. Would attorney-client privilege still protect these consultations against subsequent discovery by government lawyers in a tax enforcement action against Stevenson?

An attorney agreed to represent a client who suffered from severe mental illness that had resulted in his institutionalization. The client complained that the staff mistreated her and wanted the attorney to litigate. At the end of this litigation, the court appointed a family member as the legal guardian for the client and her assets. Subsequently, a question arose concerning the client's ownership rights in certain intellectual property, and the attorney agreed to represent the interests of the client in the property. The client's legal guardian participates in the conversations between the attorney and the client, and he serves as an intermediary for confidential correspondence or messages between the client and the attorney. Would attorney-client privilege still apply to these communications, if the guardian is present or serves as an intermediary?

An attorney represented a defendant in a personal injury action. The client made a confidential communication to the attorney concerning the circumstances of the accident. Later, in the judicial proceedings, the attorney was conducting direct examination of the client, and the client testified about the occurrence. She did not, however, make any reference in her testimony to what she told the attorney previously about the same matter. When the plaintiff's lawyer began his cross of the client, he asked whether the D's testimony was consistent with the account she previously gave to her attorney in confidence. The D's attorney objects that privilege applies to this conversation, but the plaintiff's lawyer asserts that the D waived privilege by discussing the same things in her court testimony. Which one is correct?

An attorney represented a D in a personal injury action. The client made a confidential communication to the attorney concerning the circumstances of the accident. Later, in the judicial proceedings, the attorney was conducting direct examination of the client, and the client testified about the occurrence. When the plaintiff's lawyer began his cross of the client, he asked whether the D's testimony was consistent with the account she previously gave to her attorney in confidence. The D declared, "I have testified exactly as I told attorney two days after this awful accident occurred. I explained to my attorney then that the skid marks made by the plaintiff's car were 200 feet long, and I have said the same things here." The P's lawyer then proceeds to ask questions about the discussions with her attorney, and the D's attorney objected that privilege applies to this conversation. The P's lawyer insisted that the D waived privilege by discussing the same things in her court testimony. Which one is correct/

Prof Stevenson was walking alone through a high-crime neighborhood late at night, carrying his briefcase, which contained copies of confidential and privileged correspondence between the Profesor and his attorney. Robbers mugged Stevenson and ran off with his briefcase, which they soon discarded when they discovered that it contained no cash or valuables. The police recovered the briefcase, but to identify its owner, they opened it and read the documents. Some of the documents were very incriminating, so the police turned them over to the DA. Stevenson and his attorney claim attorney-client privilege protects the documents from admission as evidence in any criminal proceedings, but the prosecution claims privilege disappeared when the police had a good reason to inspect the contents of a lost briefcase. Which side is correct?

An attorney represented a client in a license-revocation hearing before an administrative law judge. At one point, the government lawyer asked the client a question about a confidential communication with the client's attorney, and the attorney objected that the conversation clearly came under attorney-client privilege. The administrative law judge overruled the attorney and ordered the client to answer the question, and the client testified about the prior communications with his attorney. On appeal, the attorney claims that the ALJ wrongly overruled his objection and that privilege should in fact apply. The tribunal questioned whether privilege could reattach to a communication after its disclosure, even if the disclosure was the result of an incorrect ruling by a lower tribunal. In subsequent unrelated litigation with another party, opposing counsel seeks to introduce the client's testimony at the administrative hearing that disclosed the information, and the attorney again objects that the original communications were privileged, that he objected to the disclosure at the time, and that the ALJ wrongly overruled his objection. What is the result?

At attorney represented a client who was a potential D in a personal injury lawsuit. The victim of the accident has threatened the client with litigation unless the client can convince the victim's lawyers that the client is not at fault. The victim also gives a deadline for producing such evidence, after which litigation will proceed. The client authorized the attorney produce a large batch of documents. The attorney reviewed the files before sending, but she overlooked one confidential memorandum by the client to the attorney that was in the batch of documents produced. This oversight occurred even though the attorney conducted a more thorough pre-production review than most lawyers would do - the attorney was not negligent, but the mistake still happened. As soon as the attorney discovered her mistake, she reasserted privilege on behalf of the client for that document. The victim's lawyer claims that the attorney waived privilege by disclosing it, even inadvertently. Which side is correct?

A soda company had a delivery truck that collided with a school bus full of children on a field trip. The soda company's distribution manager wrote a report of the accident and provided it to the company's litigation counsel. The manager did not share the report with anyone except the attorney. When lawsuits from the injured children begin against the company, one of the Ps requests the distribution manager's report. Will a court order the attorney or the company to produce the report during discovery?

A small independent soda company had a delivery truck that collided with a school bus full of children on a field trip. The company's owner and the driver, who were co-D's in the first lawsuit over the incident, met with their litigation attorney -- the owner agreed to pay the fees for representing them both. As they were discussing the accident, the attorney called in his own accident scene investigator to join the discussion, and the investigator took notes. As the litigation progressed, the driver eventually filed a cross-claim against the owner for indemnification if the driver has to pay damages to the plaintiff. At that point, the P sought to depose the attorney's accident investigator to discover what admissions the co-D's made in the previous conversation. The owner objected. How is the court likely to rule?

A small independent soda company had a delivery truck that collided with a school bus full of children on a field trip. The company's owner and the driver, who were co-Ds in the first lawsuit over the incident, met with their litigation attorney -- the owner agreed to pay the fees for representing both. As they were discussing the accident, the attorney called in his own accident scene investigator to join the discussion, and the investigator took notes. As the litigation progressed, the driver eventually filed a crossclaim against the owner for indemnification if the driver has to pay damages to the plaintiff. At that point, the driver sought to depose the attorney's accident investigator to have him testify about the admissions the owner made in the previous conversation. The owner objected. How is the court likely to rule?

Conglomerate Corporation hired outside counsel to represent the organization in a lawsuit, but partway through representation, Conglomerate's managers decided to fire the attorney and hire someone else with more experience. Conglomerate's former attorney then sued the organization for her unpaid legal fees for the representation up to that point. Conglomerate's new lawyer subpoenaed the attorney's timesheets for the billable hours he claimed to have worked for Conglomerate, because the organization believed the attorney was overbilling. The attorney claimed that the timesheets came under attorney-client privilege and refused to disclose them. Is the attorney correct?

A client consulted with his attorney privately about how to wire funds to an offshore bank account legally, in a manner that would not violate tax laws or draw the attention of federal regulators. The attorney was not aware at the time that his client was engaged in illegal activity, and thought he merely wanted a secure investment. Later, however, the client became the target of a federal prosecution on corruption charges. The prosecution subpoenaed the attorney to answer questions about the conversation with the client regarding wire transfers to offshore accounts. The attorney objected that this was a privileged communication between the client and the attorney. How is the court likely to rule?

An attorney heard from one of his clients in county jail that the client's cellmate did not have a lawyer, so the attorney sent a message offering to represent him, and the cellmate agreed and hired the attorney. The new client was under investigation for a variety of financial crimes, so the attorney hired a private financial forensics investigator to assess the client's potential criminal liability. This investigation, conducted at the behest of the attorney, involved the investigator interviewing the client alone for over an hour about certain bank transfers and backdated checks. Later, the prosecutor subpoenaed the private financial forensics investigator to testify at the criminal proceedings against the client, and the investigator refused to answer any questions about the conversation with the D. Would attorney-client privilege apply to the investigator's private conversation with the attorney's client?

The parents of an autistic child submitted a complaint to a vaccine manufacturer, claiming that its early childhood inoculation for Mumps-Measles-Rubella had caused the child's autism. The vaccine producer referred the complaint to its legal department. Its in-house counsel investigated the complaint, and eventually concluded that the matter posed no legal issues for the company, because of a federal statute that shields vaccine manufacturers from tort liability, which in turn would preempt any lawsuits in state courts. The attorney wrote a legal memorandum to the company's management describing his research and conclusions. He included in the memorandum a section about the alleged facts, and another section presenting the legal analysis. If the parents of the child later file a lawsuit anyway, would the facts that the attorney's memorandum included be discoverable, and admissible at a subsequent trial?

Conglomerate corporation has several overseas facilities, and a mid-level manager at one of these locations bribed local government officials to obtain lucrative government contracts. The matter came to the attention of Conglomerate's top management and Board, who recognized that the incident was an egregious violation of the Foreign Corrup Practices Act. An internal corporate investigation of the matter ensued, and the corporation's directors asked their in-house general counsel to send written inquiries to the wrongdoer's counterparts in each of its overseas branches, asking whether similar payments or bribes were occurring elsewhere. After reviewing the responses to these inquiries and following up with phone calls and meetings, the corporate directors self-repored any questionable transactions to the relevant federal agencies. When one of those agencies brought an enforcement action against CC, the Dept of Justice lawyers sought discovery of all the original written responses to these internal inquiries. The corporate directors and GC refused, claiming that the information was privileged. Should CC be able to resist production of these documents as privileged?

An attorney prepared the policy manuals for a corporate client, an insurance company. The manuals guide the client's claims adjusters about claims reporting procedures, such as assigning counsel, closing files, reporting bad-faith claims, maintaining records, settlement authority, and so forth. These attorney-drafted policies served the purpose of facilitating the rendition of competent claims handling by the insurer's employees. When a litigation opponent requests production of these manuals during pre-trial discovery, would they come under attorney-client privilege?

An attorney met a small business proprietor at a social event, and the proprietor mentioned that he routinely hires lawyers for lease and contract issues. The attorney offered to provide representation for such matters in the future, and gave him his business card, and the proprietor called the next day to engage the attorney to provide these types of legal services. The new client later dropped off boxes of files with documents relating to the matters that the attorney was handling. A few weeks into the representation, the attorney noticed some discrepancies and legal issues while reviewing the documents in one of the boxes, and he sent the client an email explaining that he might face regulatory fines and even criminal sanctions if the client did not resolve the matter immediately. The client sent a reply email directing the attorney to shred the entire contents of the box of files, and he did so. A year later, law enforcement officials investigated the client and sought to compel disclosure of the emails between the client and the attorney regarding the boxes of files, including the now-missing files. The attorney claimed attorney-client privilege for the private email communications he had with his client. Should a court compel the production of the emails?

CC has several offices around the state. After receiving a few employee complaints about workplace discrimination from one office, CC's corporate officers asked the company's attorney to advise them about potential liability in the matter. The attorney conducted a careful investigation and wrote a thorough memorandum summarizing her findings and legal conclusions. Because the matter involved a commonplace scenario, the attorney thought it would be helpful to give all the company's human resources managers, in each of its offices statewide, guidance about the issue, so she sent the memorandum to all 62 HR managers in CC's offices nationwide. When litigation eventually ensued over the alleged discrimination, the P's sought discovery of the attorney's memorandum, but CC's attorney asserted attorney-client privilege. Is CC's position correct?

An attorney specialized in criminal defense work, and at one point she agreed to represent a client who had multiple charges for gang-related criminal activities. While the client was in county lockup, inmates there from a rival gang assaulted him, necessitating his hospitalization. The attorney visited her client in the hospital to discuss a pending plea offer from the prosecutor. Both the client and the attorney believed, with good reason, that they were having a confidential conversation. Unbeknownst to them, however, a doctor was eavesdropping on their conversation, and the doctor subsequently contacted the prosecutor and repeated the entire conversation. Armed with this new evidence, the prosecutor revoked the pending plea offer, proceeded with the prosecution, and called the doctor to testify at trial about the conversation. The attorney argued that her conversation with her client came under attorney-client privilege and was therefore inadmissible at trial. Is the attorney correct in this assertion?

The corporate officers of a large hospital were trying to decide whether to provide free HBO and Showtime (and other subscription cable channels) to all the televisions in the patient rooms. Corporate counsel participated in these meetings due to his familiarity with the pricing of these channels and what other hospitals in the area were doing in this regard. Later, the hospital finds itself in contract litigation with its cable provider, and the opposing party requests disclosure of the comments and discussion in this meeting. The hospital's corporate counsel objects that this meeting was privileged communication because of the participation of the attorney in the meeting. Is he correct?

A former employee is suing CC. The employee claims that Conglomerate fired him as retaliation for uncovering internal corruption at the company. While he still worked for CC, the employee had several email exchanges with CC's in-house counsel about the problems he had uncovered and the consequences for reporting them. Now that litigation has ensued after his termination, he requests production of all his email exchanges with in-house counsel (he no longer has access to the company's email server). CC's lawyers assert that these conversations are privileged because the emails were between a CC employee and its corporate counsel. Would the emails come under the protection of attorney-client privilege, given these facts?

An attorney represented a personal injury plaintiff in a lawsuit. While trying to find potential witnesses to support the client's litigation claims and personal credibility, the attorney met with several neighbors and friends of the client, asking about the incident that injured the client, as well as the client's character and past behavior. One of the client's neighbors told the attorney several disturbing stories about wild parties at the client's house, and disreputable characters who frequently visited the home. Later, at trial, the D sought to compel the attorney to disclose the information conveyed by the client's neighbors. The attorney objected that this information falls under the attorney-client privilege and is therefore inadmissible. Is the attorney correct in this assertion?

A client had a confidential conversation with his attorney seeking legal advice. The client died a few weeks later. The client had pending litigation at the time of his conversation with the attorney, and the opposing party seeks disclosure of the conversation, because opposing counsel believes the client had instructed the attorney to accept the opposing party's settlement offer, up to a certain amount. The attorney is continuing the claim on behalf of the client's estate, and he refuses to settle or to disclose the contents of the conversation. Should the court compel the attorney to reveal whether the client wanted to settle the case before he died?

An attorney sometimes recorded his interviews with clients, after obtaining permission from the client, especially when the client was recounting a long narrative about events that transpired, which had given rise to litigation. The opposing party in one lawsuit sought discovery of the recording of the client's narrative of the events to the attorney. Which of the following is most likely to result in the recording being discoverable?

Attorney Stevenson works in-house as General Counsel for CC. CC's Chief Financial Officer resigned suddenly. Due to his background in corporate finance and economics, CC's Board of Directors asked Stevenson to serve temporarily as the acting CFO until they could find a permanent replacement to fill the position. Stevenson divided his time between corporate financial operations and legal tasks for the company, such as contract review, regulatory compliance, and supervising the outside firms that handle the company's litigation. His financial responsibilities at CC included reviewing financial reports and forecasts, investment strategy proposals, and various emails or memoranda relating to the firm's financial affairs. An opposing party in antitrust litigation against the corporation seeks to compel production of some of Attorney Stevenson's financial reports and strategy proposals, but he claims these come under attorney-client privilege, as he simultaneously serves as the in-house lawyer for CC. Are the documents discoverable at trial?

An attorney handled the estate planning for an elderly client, which included the creation of a spendthrift trust, with the client's grandchildren as beneficiaries. The trust document stipulated that disbursements to the beneficiaries were discretionary until they reach the age of 25. The client has now died, and the attorney who drafted the trust document for the client serves as the trustee. The beneficiaries, ages 21-23, have sued, seeking larger and more frequent disbursements from the trust. During discovery, the Ps request production of all documents relating to the creation of the trust and the testator's intentions about disbursements -- emails and memoranda between the deceased client and the attorney. The attorney, now the trustee, claims that these communications come under the protection of attorney-client privilege. How should the court rule?

Walter White conferred confidentially with his attorney, Saul Goodman, about how to resolve a specific legal problem. Attorney Goodman suggested shredding documents and hiring some thugs to beat up the other party in the matter, leaving them with a warning to stay away from Walter White. White, the client, proceeds with his plan. Later, when White faces criminal prosecution for the assault-for-hire, the prosecutor seeks disclosure of any conversations he had with his attorney about hiring thugs to carry out the assault. Predictably, Attorney Goodman argues that the conversation comes under the protection of attorney-client privilege. Is the prosecutor correct to demand disclosure?

CC's recent litigation has received unfavorable media attention, so the corporate directors have hired a public relations firm (Afflatus, Inc) to handle media relations and help boost the company's image. The directors have also asked their attorney, who is handling their litigation, to meet with the Afflatus staff, explaining the company's litigation position and how to answer media inquiries without giving statements that might bind the corporation to a disadvantageous legal position. The attorney opened his presentation with a declaration that some of the information shared would be privileged. A few months later, the opposing party learns that this meeting occurred and seeks discovery of the PowerPoint slides the attorney used in the presentation to the public relations firm. Given these facts, would these slides be discoverable at trial?

CC had an accident occur at one of its chemical manufacturing facilities -- a large explosion killed several workers and injured many others. Soon after the accident, at the behest of CC's corporate managers, the general counsel obtained statements from employees and other witnesses about what happened, memorializing the statements in written form. Later, the family of an employee killed in the accident sued CC, and the P's interrogatories included a demand for the contents of the written statements taken by the corporate general counsel. Must CC disclose the statements taken by its attorney after the accident?ted

An attorney represented CC, and she made a confidential report to CC's CEO, describing CC's contractual relationship with Supplier Systems, a large vendor. The attorney advised the CEO that CC could terminate its contract with Supplier without facing any liability. The CEO then sent a confidential memorandum to CC's purchasing manager, explaining the parts of the attorney's advice necessary for understanding the issue at hand, and asking whether termination of the contract would nonetheless be inappropriate for business reasons. Months later, CC finds itself in litigation over a related matter, and the opposing party seeks discovery of what the attorney reported to the CEO regarding Supplier's contract. CC asserts attorney-client privilege for the report and its contents, but opposing counsel responds that CC waived privilege by sharing crucial aspects of the report with the purchasing manager, while asking for a business judgment. How is the court likely to rule?

An attorney represented CC. An officer of CC communicated in confidence with the attorney about deals between CC and one of its creditors, Big Bank. CC later declared bankruptcy, and the court appointed a trustee in bankruptcy for CC. Then the attorney became a necessary witness in the litigation between BB and CC's bankruptcy trustee. CC's trustee in bankruptcy waived privilege on behalf of CC with respect to testimony by the attorney regarding statements by the officer to the attorney. The officer, knowing that the statements would embarrass or even incriminate him, tried to prevent the attorney from testifying, claiming the conversation was a privileged communication to the corporation's attorney. BB's lawyer responded that former officers and directors of a corporation cannot claim privilege after control of the corporation has passed to a bankruptcy trustee. Should the court side with the officer in this situation?

An attorney's client was a member of a drug cartel that imported and distributed illegal narcotics. The client promised the other cartel members that the client would provide anyone in the cartel with legal representation whenever the need arose. The client then offered the attorney a generous monthly retainer if the attorney would stand ready to provide legal services whenever the client or the cartel associates encountered legal difficulties during the operation of the cartel. In a confidential communication that would normally otherwise qualify as privileged, the client told the attorney the identities of the other cartel members. The client continued the cartel operations for some time after this communication. Would government lawyers, in a subsequent law enforcement action, be able to compel the attorney to disclose the identities of the other cartel members?

A client consults an attorney about the client's indictment for the crimes of theft and unlawful possession of stolen goods. Applicable law treats possession of stolen goods as a continuing offense. The client is still hiding the stolen items in a secret place. The prosecutor then tries to subpoena the attorney to testify about the conversations with the client regarding the charges and the legal proceedings. Would attorney-client privilege apply to the conversation if the client's crime is still ongoing?

A client consults and attorney about the client's indictment for the crimes of theft and unlawful possession of stolen goods. Applicable law treats possession of stolen goods as a continuing offense. The client is still hiding the items in a secret place, and the client asks the attorney about in which client can continue to hold onto the stolen goods. The prosecutor then tries to subpoena the attorney to testify about the location of the stolen goods. Would attorney-client privilege apply to the conversation if the client's crime is still ongoing?the client.

A client consults an attorney about the client's indictment for the crimes of theft and unlawful possession of stolen goods. Applicable law treats possession of stolen goods as a continuing offense. The client is still hiding the stolen items in a secret place, and the client asks the attorney about how the client might lawfully return the stolen items. The prosecutor then tries to subpoena the attorney to testify about the conversation. Would attorney-client privilege apply to the conversation if the client's crime is still ongoing?

Which of the following is NOT one of the elements of the word product doctrine?

Prosecutors from the DOJ began an antitrust investigation into CC, and the DOJ began questioning some of CC's business customers. CC's attorney prepared a memorandum analyzing the antitrust implications of CC's standard contract form with commercial purchasers. Soon thereafter, some CC employees received subpoenas to testify before a grand jury that was investigating the same antitrust issues in their industry. The attorney worried that the grand jury would indict CC, so she interviewed the employees herself and prepared a debriefing memorandum. Would the attorney's two memoranda described above come under the protection of the work product doctrine?

The law school casebook industry was heavily consolidated. Several witnesses testified before a grand jury investigating this specialized publishing industry. Shortly afterward, an attorney for East Publishing Company debriefed the witnesses and wrote memoranda of those interviews in anticipation of the potential indictment of East Publishing, and the anticipated civil suits that could follow. Five years later, some Ps representing a class of law school casebook consumers filed an antitrust class action against East Publishing and sought discovery of the non-opinion work-product portions of the attorney's debriefing memoranda. The Ps were careful in preparing their case and gathering evidence through other means, and they can show that the witnesses in question were no longer able to remember some of the events to which they testified at the previous grand jury proceeding. Should a court order the attorney to produce the memorandum?

A defendant accused of bank robbery hired an attorney. The attorney interviewed a bank teller, who witnessed the robbery. The attorney memorialized the conversation in a written memorandum that qualified as work-product. Later, during the trial, the same teller testified for the prosecution, and the attorney cross-examined the bank teller by quoting from the teller's prior statement, as memorialized in the memorandum. The bank teller then denied making the statements. In turn, the prosecutor demanded a copy of the document from which the attorney had read statements during the cross-examination, and the attorney objected that the document was work-product and therefore not subject to discovery. Is the attorney correct?

The DOJ brought an antitrust suit against CC. Giant Company separated sued CC, mostly alleging the same facts that the DOJ had alleged in its case, and GC sought parallel relief. An attorney for GC showed the DOJ lawyers some documents that constituted part of the attorney's work product in GC's parallel lawsuit against CC. GC and the DOJ formally agreed that the DOJ would use documents only in litigation against CC. Later, however, in the government's case, CC sought discovery of GC's work product, that is, the documents that Giant's attorney had shared with the DOJ. How should the court rule on this discovery request?

An attorney had many years of experience in handling personal injury litigation, and in a certain case, the attorney represented a plaintiff in litigation over injuries sustained in a car accident. In preparation for trial, the attorney interviewed each of the eyewitnesses of the accident, and afterward wrote a memorandum summarizing what each witness said. The witnesses themselves agreed to swear and sign the statements as if they were affidavits. The statements contained no mental impressions of the attorney, only facts communicated by the witnesses. Opposing counsel eventually learned of these interviews and sought discovery of the witness statements that the plaintiff's attorney had drafted. Unsurprisingly, the attorney objected that these documents were attorney work-product doctrine. Should the court compel the production of the witness statements?

An attorney agreed to represent a plaintiff who sustained serious injuries three months earlier when she fell through a defective staircase on the defendant's premises. Her hospitalization after the incident prevented the plaintiff from securing legal representation for twelve weeks. The attorney filed a personal injury lawsuit immediately, and the defendant retained counsel for the litigation in response. The defendant's lawyer visited the accident scene immediately and took photographs. By that time, the defendant had completely rebuilt the staircase, adding additional handrails, banisters, and other safeguards. Later, as the litigation proceeded through the discovery phase, the plaintiff's attorney sought production of defense counsel's photographs of the scene, and defense counsel objected that the photographs were non-discoverable attorney work product. The attorney for the plaintiff explained in a motion to the court that the lapse of time since the accident prevented the attorney from viewing the accident scene as it was at the time, invoking the need-and-hardship doctrine. Moreover, the plaintiff's delay in securing counsel was due to her injuries and hospitalization, which were not her fault. How should the court rule?

An attorney represented a client in litigation. During the discovery phase of the matter, the opposing party sought to discover communications from a meeting that the attorney had previously organized to prepare for the case. The attorney, an accountant, certain interested creditors, and the bankruptcy liquidation committee members had all attended the meeting, as well as a few others. The attorney resisted discovery based on the work product doctrine. The opposing party countered that the presence of other parties besides the attorney, the client, and their necessary agents waived the privilege. How should the court rule?

An attorney agreed to represent a plaintiff who sustained serious injuries three months earlier when she fell through a defective staircase on the defendant's premises. Her hospitalization after the incident prevented the plaintiff from securing legal representation for 12 weeks. The attorney filed a personal injury lawsuit immediately, and the defendant retained counsel for the litigation in response. The defendant's lawyer, however, had visited the accident scene immediately after the accident and took photographs. Two weeks after, the defendant completely rebuilt the staircase, adding additional handrails, banisters, and other safeguards. Later, as the litigation proceeded through the discovery phase, the plaintiff's attorney sought production of defense counsel's photographs of the scene, and defense counsel objected that the photographs were non-discoverable attorney work product. The attorney for the plaintiff explained in a motion to the court that the lapse of time since the accident prevented the attorney from viewing the accident scene as it was at the time, invoking the need-and-hardship doctrine. Moreover, the plaintiff's delay in securing counsel was due to her injuries and hospitalization, which were not her fault. How should the court rule?

An attorney had a series of private meetings with a client about incorporating the client's new business venture as an LLC. The attorney kept careful notes of these discussions. Which of the following is true regarding these notes about the conversations between the attorney and the client?

An attorney had a series of private meetings with a client about the subject matter of the representation. The attorney kept careful notes of these discussions, along with the attorney's reflections and concerns. Sometime later, an opposing party in litigation moved to compel production of these notes. Which of the following is most likely to be a reason that the attorney would assert attorney-client privilege for these notes, rather than claim they are attorney work product?

An attorney had a series of private meetings with a client about the subject matter of the representation. The attorney kept careful notes of these discussions. Sometime later, an opposing party in litigation moved to compel production of these notes. Which of the following is most likely to be a reason that the attorney would try claiming that they are attorney work product, rather than asserting attorney-client privilege for these notes?

An attorney had a series of private meetings with a client about the subject matter of the representation. The attorney kept careful notes of these discussions, along with some of the attorney's reflections and ideas. Sometime later, an opposing party in litigation moved to compel production of these notes. Which of the following is most likely to be a reason that the attorney would assert attorney-client privilege for these notes, rather than claim they are attorney work product?

For purposes of attorney work product protection, which of the following is NOT likely to create an objectively and subjectively reasonable "anticipation" of litigation?

An attorney served as the director of the Environmental Enforcement Division of the state Attorney General's office, which brought legal actions against polluters in the state. The AG's office hired only lawyers with three years' experience or more -- they never hired new law school graduates. In the EED, all the lawyers had many years of experience as litigators in that field. The attorney who served as director oversaw the prioritization of cases and implementation of the AG's policy objectives, and assigned cases to the lawyers in her Division, but did not need to monitor their work, train them in legal ethics, or watch for ethical violations, because all of the lawyers were competent and experienced. It turned out, however, that one of the lawyers committed some ethical violations, such as testifying as the key witness in a trial in which he was the attorney of record for the case, which was the plaintiff or prosecuting party in the cases. In another instance, the lawyer brought an enforcement action that had no factual basis in retaliation against an entity that had defrauded the lawyer of a substantial amount of money. When these violations received attention in a local news station expose, the lawyer resigned in disgrace, and the AG took the position that the director of the EED is not responsible for the actions of this individual lawyer, whom he described as a "bad apple" in the Division. Is he correct?

A certain attorney worked at Big Firm, and she was supervising a new associate lawyer there. During a negotiation for the sale of a company, in which Big Firm represented the seller, the associate informed the buyer's lawyers that certain assets of the company had no liens or other encumbrances on them, and that she has verified this for herself. This was a misrepresentation -- the properties had significant encumbrances, which the purchase price should have reflected, but it did not. The supervising attorney, who was part of the conversation when the associate made the presentation, did not correct her, because she did not want to humiliate her in front of the opposing party, or reveal an internal discord among Big Firm's lawyers. Instead, the supervising attorney lectured the associate about the misrepresentation privately the next day, and he told her not to let it happen again. Then they agreed to drop the matter, and the supervising attorney instructed the associate to watch for a good opportunity to bring up the mistake and clarify the matter for the buyer. The associate never did so. Could the supervising attorney be subject to discipline for failing to correct the resulting misapprehension by the buyer?

An associate worked at Big Firm. Even though she had only recently graduated from law school, the associate had earned the respect of the partners at the firm, and she was involved in several projects for multiple lawyers and clients. Overwhelmed with looming deadlines on multiple matters, she realized that she could not devote enough attention to each client's issues -- she could not provide competent diligent representation to so many clients at once. She approached the partner who was her mentor at the firm and explained her concerns, and he responded that she was just experiencing a learning curve, and that her workload was in fact normal, and that she should stop complaining. A few weeks later, the associate was conducting research on a client matter, and she overlooked an important case related to her issue, despite her conscientious work ethic. At the time, she was racing against deadlines on two other projects, was working long hours, and was sleeping only five hours a night on average. Big Firm has a managing partner and a committee of senior partners. Could the partner who was her mentor be subject to disciplinary action for the associate's mistake?

An attorney had supervisory responsibilities for a new lawyer at her firm, but she had her own cases and clients to handle. It was a busy season for the firm, so the attorney did not check on the associate herself, but she would take time to answer questions if the associate approached her. The associate needed more oversight and direction than she received, and she committed several serious ethical violations. The supervising attorney had no way of knowing about these because the associate was always careful to cover up her mistakes or blame others when something went wrong. Could the supervising attorney avoid responsibility for the associate's ethical violations even if she did not direct, ratify, or have knowledge of the associate's misdeeds?

An attorney was the District Attorney for a local prosecutor's office, and she had several subordinate lawyers working under her authority and oversight. This office had a series of appeals from defendants they prosecuted, and in several cases, the appellate courts reversed the convictions over Brady violations, that is, withholding exculpatory material evidence from defense counsel. Is the DA immune to discipline for these violations?