Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
"Anything You Say May Be Used Against You": A Proposed Seminar On The Lawyer’S Duty To Warn Of Confidentiality’S Limits In Today's Post-Enron World, Paul F. Rothstein
"Anything You Say May Be Used Against You": A Proposed Seminar On The Lawyer’S Duty To Warn Of Confidentiality’S Limits In Today's Post-Enron World, Paul F. Rothstein
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In light of recent developments, the confidence that one's communications with a lawyer will remain sacrosanct today may be badly misplaced. This raises important questions concerning the duty of lawyers: When, to what extent, and in what detail, does an attorney communicating with someone who may expect confidentiality, have a duty to explain in advance the circumstances under which the information gained may subsequently be revealed pursuant to these or other confidentiality loopholes? Will the interviewee “clam up” in the face of such Miranda-like warnings? If so, what does this do to the premise of Upjohn and the Model Rule …
On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit, Brief Of Law Professors Paul F. Rothstein, Et. Al., Office Of The President V. Office Of Independent Counsel, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Allen, Margaret A. Berger, William J. Bridge, Paul C. Giannelli, Stephen Gillers, Laird C. Kirkpatrick, David P. Leonard, Miguel A. Mendez, Roger C. Park, Myrna S. Raeder, John W. Reed, Mark Reutlinger, Leo M. Romero, Stephen A. Saltzburg, Peter Tillers
On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit, Brief Of Law Professors Paul F. Rothstein, Et. Al., Office Of The President V. Office Of Independent Counsel, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Allen, Margaret A. Berger, William J. Bridge, Paul C. Giannelli, Stephen Gillers, Laird C. Kirkpatrick, David P. Leonard, Miguel A. Mendez, Roger C. Park, Myrna S. Raeder, John W. Reed, Mark Reutlinger, Leo M. Romero, Stephen A. Saltzburg, Peter Tillers
U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
This Court should grant review not only because this is a case of national importance and prominence, but also because the decision below is a conspicuous departure from settled principles of evidence law. The panel majority concluded that communications between government lawyers and government officials are not protected by the attorney-client privilege, at least when those communications are sought by a federal grand jury. That conclusion conflicts with the predominant common-law understanding that the attorney-client privilege applies to government entities and that where the privilege applies, it is absolute (i.e., it protects against disclosure in all types of legal and …