Opinion ID: 1309235
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Attorney-Client Privilege and Work-Product PrivilegeGenerally

Text: The attorney-client privilege was stated in a widely quoted definition by Judge Wyzanski: The privilege applies only if (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357, 358-59 (D.Mass.1950). The attorney-client privilege applies only to attorney-client communications, and is intended as a shield, not a sword. 8 Wigmore § 2327. The privilege may therefore be deemed waived where the party asserting the privilege, in the course of litigation, raises an issue the effective rebuttal of which requires inquiry into privileged communications. The work product rule is distinct from and broader than the attorney-client privilege. It extends to all documents and tangible things prepared by or for a client, the client's attorney, or their agents in anticipation of litigation or for trial, rather than merely protecting confidential communications between the attorney and his or her client. Rule 26(b)(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that the work product doctrine provides qualified immunity for documents and tangible things. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) extends the reach of the doctrine beyond documents and tangible things to interviews, statements, memoranda, correspondence, briefs, mental impressions, personal beliefs, and countless other tangible and intangible ways. 329 U.S. at 511, 67 S.Ct. 385. The work product rule does not extend to every written document generated by an attorney; it does not shield from disclosure everything that a lawyer does. Its purpose is more narrow, its reach more modest.... [T]he purpose of the privilege is to encourage effective legal representation within the framework of the adversary system by removing counsel's fears that his thoughts and information will be invaded by his adversary. Jordan v. United States Department of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 775 (D.C.Cir. 1978)( en banc ). The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client alone; the work product immunity belongs to both the attorney and the client.