Task: Text Completion
Input (English): documents consist of letters, memoranda or e-mail between in-house attorneys or between an in-house attorney and outside counsel concerning the patents at issue. Although communications between in-house counsel are not communications directly to or from the client, it appears implicit in present day litigation with multiple attorneys required for proper representation that attorneys must be allowed to confer with each other regarding the representation of a client on a privileged basis in the same way that clients must be able to discuss the advice of counsel amongst themselves on a privileged basis. Natta v. Zletz, 418 F.2d at 637 n. 3. See also Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 1996 WL 341537 at *4; Wilstein v. San Tropai Condominium Master Assoc., 189 F.R.D. 371 (N.D.Ill.1999) (<HOLDING>) To the extent that the communications are 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that attorneyclient privilege could apply to communications of legal advice between nonlawyer members of management and human resources department if the communication was made in confidence for the primary purpose of obtaining legal advice (B) holding that a document which is given to an attorney in the course of seeking legal advice is privileged in the hands of the attorney only if it was privileged in the hands of the client (C) holding that retention of an attorney to investigate an insurance claim and make a coverage determination under a policy is a classic example of a client seeking legal advice from an attorney (D) holding that if documents are privileged in the hands of the client they retain that privilege when given to an attorney for the purpose of seeking legal advice (E) holding that discussions between management personnel concerning legal advice given by attorney is privileged even when attorney is not physically present
Output (English): (E)