Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Conflicting Standards For Applying The Corporate Attorney-Client Privilege, Kay E. Stephenson
Conflicting Standards For Applying The Corporate Attorney-Client Privilege, Kay E. Stephenson
Vanderbilt Law Review
The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between client and attorney from forced disclosure.' Dating back to at least 1577, the privilege arose from the belief that it was a point of honor for the attorney to keep his client's confidences.'The modern rationale for the privilege, however, is the perceived need to encourage full and frank discussion between attorney and client by removing the fear of forced disclosure.' Thus, the privilege rests on the premise that the social benefits derived from uninhibited communication and from the attorney's access to all the facts outweigh the detrimental effects of concealing information during trial.' …
Judicial Restrictions On Attorneys' Speech Concerning Pending Litigation: Reconciling The Rights To Fair Trial And Freedom Of Speech, Sally R. Weaver
Judicial Restrictions On Attorneys' Speech Concerning Pending Litigation: Reconciling The Rights To Fair Trial And Freedom Of Speech, Sally R. Weaver
Vanderbilt Law Review
The constitutionality of restraints on attorneys' speech has been considered by only two federal circuit courts: the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer,' and, more recently, the Fourth Circuit, in Hirschkop v. Snead.' Relying on many of the same precedents, the circuits nevertheless developed seemingly contrary standards. This Recent Development compares the analyses of these recent cases and suggests an appropriate standard for the accommodation of the conflicting rights of free speech and a fair trial.
General Laws, Neutral Principles, And The Free Exercise Clause, G. Michael Mccrossin
General Laws, Neutral Principles, And The Free Exercise Clause, G. Michael Mccrossin
Vanderbilt Law Review
This Note examines several recent Supreme Court decisions considering the first amendment's free exercise clause to determine whether, collectively, the decisions are results of principled decision making. During the past two decades the Court has had four significant opportunities to deal with the free exercise clause. In all but one, the Court made important statements about the constitutional protection afforded the free exercise of religious belief. In each case the basic issue was the same: was interference with the exercise of religion unconstitutional when that interference resulted from the application of a general law that promoted a valid public policy …