Law Commons^™

"Show And Tell": An Analysis Of The Scope Of The Attorney-Client Waiver Standards, Roberta M. Harding

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

As today's society becomes increasingly litigious, document productions, a major discovery tool, are growing larger. One inevitable consequence of this phenomenon is the increased risk that communications protected by the attorney-client privilege may be inadvertently disclosed. Privileged communications may also be disclosed to an adversary under more questionable circumstances: specifically, the intentional, strategic disclosure of privileged information favorable to the disclosing party's position.

In any case involving the disclosure of privileged information, the court must initially decide whether the privilege is waived. To resolve this threshold issue courts apply one of the three waiver tests. If a court decides that …

The Doctor And His Lawyer: Conflicts Of Interest, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article will not survey and catalog all available cases dealing with the "insurance counsel's tightrope." Instead, it will focus on the identification and resolution of conflicts of interest that may arise at various stages of the litigation of a medical malpractice action in which a lawyer has been retained to represent the interests of both the physician policy-holder and his insurance carrier. Many of the problems examined are applicable to all insurance defense litigation, and the combination of large claims and complex issues presented in medical malpractice cases, together with the distrust of lawyers shared by many doctors, provides …

Kentucky Law Survey: Professional Responsibility, Eugene R. Gaetke, Rebecca G. Casey

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In the face of persistent criticism of the legal profession, from within as well as without, the Kentucky Supreme Court exhibits a certain degree of ambivalence toward issues of professional responsibility. This ambivalence manifests itself in two ways.

First, the Court's treatment of different categories of professional misconduct seems at times unjustifiably inconsistent. The Court reacts to certain misconduct in an almost uniformly harsh manner, evincing the attitude of a strict disciplinarian for the practicing bar. Occasionally, however, the Court responds to various other kinds of equally gross misconduct with apparently undue leniency. In such cases the Court seems to …