Opinion ID: 884671
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Work-product

Text: ¶ 114 On June 18, 1996, Ingraham filed a motion to dismiss all the charges brought against him on grounds of violation of the attorney-client privilege and work product rule. The court denied Ingraham's motion, concluding in pertinent part that the work product doctrine did not apply to conversations Ingraham had with Windham in the aftermath of the accident. In so concluding, the court reasoned that [t]he logical extension of this argument would be that no statements of attorney-parties to litigation would ever be admissible. There was never any indication that the Defendant was representing himself in connection with this matter. In fact, in support of his argument concerning the attorney-client privilege, Defendant contends that the relationship was established between himself, as client, and his father, as attorney, within minutes after the motor vehicle collision that led to these charges. There is no support for the proposition that the information shared by Defendant with his employees should be excluded under the work product doctrine. Having reviewed the record, we agree with the District Court's conclusion on this issue and, absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb its decision to admit Windham's testimony.