Court Opinion

ID: 9571980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:37:03.023138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:17.167882
License: Public Domain

Fletcher, Chief Justice,
concurring.
Although I generally agree with the majority’s opinion, I write separately to identify a few of the issues that may arise on remand, or in future cases. First, an attorney could have a valid claim of work product protection against his client in a document that was prepared in anticipation of litigation between the client and the attorney. Second, I believe whether the client has been charged for the creation of the document should be a significant factor in deciding whether the client owns the document. Third, the document at issue in this case apparently memorializes what may be described as compromise negotiations and, therefore, would be inadmissible under OCGA § 24-3-37. On remand, the trial court should consider whether the document is inadmissible under OCGA § 24-3-37 and, if so, if it is nonetheless discoverable.4
*575Regina M. Quick, Christopher L. Casey, for appellees.

 See generally OCGA § 9-11-26 (b) (1).