Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Attorney-client privielge; In-house consel; Content of communication; Role of In-House consel; Non-legal functions; Protected Attorney-Client communications discoverable; Business advice; Purpose and content of speech (1)
- Criminal law; Environmental Law; SLAPP Suits; Crimnal Contempt; Civil Contempt; Judicial Discretion; Judicial Bias; Ethics; Judicial Ethics; Professional Responsibility; Donziger; Chevron; Private Prosecutors; Law and Society; Federal Courts (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Legal Profession
United States V. Donziger: How The Mere Appearance Of Judicial Impropriety Harms Us All, Jackie Kushner
United States V. Donziger: How The Mere Appearance Of Judicial Impropriety Harms Us All, Jackie Kushner
Journal of Law and Policy
In 2011, environmentalist lawyer Steven Donziger was sued in a retaliatory lawsuit by the oil company Chevron, following his securement of a multibillion-dollar award against the company for its environmental harms in Ecuador. In a case rife with judicial impropriety, Donziger was ultimately charged with criminal contempt of court and his charges were prosecuted by a private attorney. These suits exemplify the growing problem of powerful corporations using legal tactics to retaliate against activists and undermine the legitimacy of the legal system. Federal judges contribute to the problem by misusing the extensive power they hold in distinguishing criminal from civil …
When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It: Unifying The Split In New York's Analysis Of In-House Attorney-Client Privilege, Thomas O'Connor
When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It: Unifying The Split In New York's Analysis Of In-House Attorney-Client Privilege, Thomas O'Connor
Journal of Law and Policy
As one surveys the vast and ever-changing landscape of law and litigation, few things stand out as so unanimously exalted and carefully guarded as the privilege protecting attorney-client communications. Yet there is today a surprising lack of uniformity and predictability in the reasoning by which New York courts determine whether a communication made by in-house counsel to its corporate client will – or will not – enjoy the protection of that privilege. Rather than follow a single and predictable analysis to resolve the question, New York courts have oscillated between one line of decisions focusing primarily on the purpose of …