Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Proposal To Improve Washington's Rules On Ex Parte Contact, Connor Rowinski
A Proposal To Improve Washington's Rules On Ex Parte Contact, Connor Rowinski
Washington Law Review
Privilege doctrines play an important role in allowing clients to confide in their trusted attorneys and doctors. The intersection of two privilege doctrines in medical malpractice litigation—physician-patient privilege and attorney-client privilege—places physicians working at corporate hospitals in a catch-22 of allegiances. On one hand, physicians cannot disclose patient information, whereas on the other, they must assist their employer in defending the case. These concerns are heightened when attorneys seek to communicate with non-party physicians ex parte—that is, unsupervised. In Youngs v. Peacehealth, the Washington State Supreme Court allowed corporate defendants to communicate ex parte with the plaintiff’s treating physician under …
Why Settle For Less? Improving Settlement Conferences In Federal Court, William P. Lynch
Why Settle For Less? Improving Settlement Conferences In Federal Court, William P. Lynch
Washington Law Review
Most cases settle before trial. Recent studies show that approximately 1% of cases filed in federal court go to trial. Alternative dispute resolution processes have been fully incorporated into federal court, and settlement conferences have long been used by federal court judges to control their dockets. Do they provide litigants with both substantive and procedural justice in the vast majority of cases that do not proceed to trial? Lawyers have raised concerns about judicial coercion to settle cases at settlement conferences, the loss of confidentiality that occurs when parties raise claims of bad faith participation at the conference, and that …
What Do You Know? Discovering Document Compilations In 39(B)(6) Depositions, Sara Leonetti
What Do You Know? Discovering Document Compilations In 39(B)(6) Depositions, Sara Leonetti
Washington Law Review
The work product doctrine emerged as a judicially created, practical solution to resolve problems inherent in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). While the FRCP famously sought to broaden discovery and increase parties’ access to information, the rules infamously failed to prevent attorneys from discovering each other’s work product. For policy reasons—primarily to keep some semblance of the adversarial system—the U.S. Supreme Court created work product qualified immunity to prevent attorneys from discovering their opponents’ work, mental impressions, and legal strategies. At the end of the twentieth century, courts significantly extended the work product doctrine when they began to …