Preserving Attorney-Client Privilege in the Age of Electronic Discovery
Anthony Francis Bruno
Abstract
Open-access reader
Anthony Francis Bruno
Abstract
Open-access reader
See Laura Catherine Daniel, Note, The Dubious Origins and Dangers of Clawback and Quick-Peek Agreements: An Argument Against Their Codification in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 47 Wm.& Mary L. Rev. 663, 673-74 (2005).also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910 (8th Cir.1997).The privilege protects clients, that is, persons who consult with lawyers to obtain professional legal services and/or advice.Weinstein & Berger, § 503.01 (stating the text of United States Supreme Court Standard 503, which Congress declined to adopt as Federal Rule of Evidence 503).34.United States Supreme Court Standard 503, quoted in Weinstein & Berger, supra note 33, § 503.01.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
See Laura Catherine Daniel, Note, The Dubious Origins and Dangers of Clawback and Quick-Peek Agreements: An Argument Against Their Codification in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 47 Wm.& Mary L. Rev. 663, 673-74 (2005).also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910 (8th Cir.1997).The privilege protects clients, that is, persons who consult with lawyers to obtain professional legal services and/or advice.Weinstein & Berger, § 503.01 (stating the text of United States Supreme Court Standard 503, which Congress declined to adopt as Federal Rule of Evidence 503).34.United States Supreme Court Standard 503, quoted in Weinstein & Berger, supra note 33, § 503.01.
Key concepts: Privilege (computing), Internet privacy, Computer security, Computer science