Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- 1901 (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)
- Barnett v. Corson (1)
- Circumstantial Evidence (1)
- Defamation (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Barnett Vs. Corson. Libel—Truth Of Statement As A Defence—Malice—Act Of Apr. 11, 1901, Construed
Barnett Vs. Corson. Libel—Truth Of Statement As A Defence—Malice—Act Of Apr. 11, 1901, Construed
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
No abstract provided.
Electronic Discovery, K. Alex Khoury
Electronic Discovery, K. Alex Khoury
Mercer Law Review
At the end of 2015, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to reform the discovery process with three main goals in mind: (1) promoting cooperation between the parties, (2) emphasizing proportionality in discovery, and (3) encouraging active case management by the courts. This Article will examine how the courts in the Eleventh Circuit interpreted and applied the new rules in 2016 and consider whether the new rules are having their desired effect on E-Discovery practice.
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 …