Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Adversarial proceeding (1)
- Attorney-client privilege; full and frank conversations; hack; hackers; hacktivism; whistleblowing; technology; cybersecurity; ethics; bar associations; evidence; Federal Rules of Evidence; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; claw back agreements; quick peek agreements; litigation; waiver; express waiver; implicit waiver; privileged communications; inadvertent disclosure; unintentional disclosure; unauthorized disclosure; purloined communications; stolen documents; technology; email; Wikileaks; Panama papers; Ashley Madison; Clinton Foundation; Teneo; John Podesta; Sony Entertainment; public domain; duty of confidentiality (1)
- Battle of the experts (1)
- Civil litigation (1)
- Conflict of interest (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Reevaluating Attorney-Client Privilege In The Age Of Hackers, Anne E. Conroy
Reevaluating Attorney-Client Privilege In The Age Of Hackers, Anne E. Conroy
Brooklyn Law Review
The news story is now familiar: hackers breach a security system and post internal, confidential information online for anyone with an Internet connection to comb through. This digital version of whistleblowing, called “hacktivism,” is attractive to the media, which has leaned on broad First Amendment protections to widely cover the confidential communications revealed by hackers. These hacks also provide attorneys with enticing opportunities to look through previously confidential files. But as ethics and evidentiary rules stand, it is not clear if an attorney may view the files, let alone use them as evidence in litigation. That companies are hacked is …
New Rules Of War In The Battle Of The Experts: Amending The Expert Witness Disqualification Test For Conflicts Of Interest, Nina A. Vershuta
New Rules Of War In The Battle Of The Experts: Amending The Expert Witness Disqualification Test For Conflicts Of Interest, Nina A. Vershuta
Brooklyn Law Review
In civil litigation, the big business of retaining experts has raised concerns about the integrity of the adversarial process and undermined the role that expert testimony plays at trial. Due to a rising demand for expert testimony, it is common for the same expert to testify for opposing clients. When a client hires an expert who has been previously retained by that client’s adversary, a conflict of interest arises. Such experts may share confidential information with their new client to the detriment of the former client—triggering the expert disqualification test for conflicts of interest. Most state and federal courts do …