Shopping Bag

0 item(s) in cart/ total: $0    view cart
Free Instant Delivery  |  No Sales Tax
Home > Case Law > Ethics and Professsionalism  >  Corporate Employees Do Not Have Attorney Client Privilege With Corporate Counsel
Corporate Employees Do Not Have Attorney Client Privilege With Corporate Counsel
Corporate Employees Do Not Have Attorney Client Privilege With Corporate Counsel Cartoons

Corporate Employees Do Not Have Attorney Client Privilege With Corporate Counsel

In re Grand Jury Subpoena; for person seeking invoke attorney-client privilege prove client affirmatively sought become client; motion to quash; quash; subpoena duces tecum.
Your Price: $10.00

Select Usage (details) :

Related Cartoons

Licari v. Blackwelder
Licari v. Blackwelder
Real estate brokers must disclose prospective purchasers and not engage in self-dealing as fiduciaries, act in good faith, and disclose all information that is or may be material to their clients' rights and interests.
Underwriter Duty to Investors
Underwriter Duty to Investors
Dolphin and Bradbury, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission; Because investors rely on the reputation, integrity, independence, and expertise of an underwriter, the underwriter has a obligation to investigate and disclose material facts.
Client Responsible For Actions of Attorney
Client Responsible For Actions of Attorney
S.E.C. v. McNulty; Ordinarily, the conduct of an attorney is imputed to his client, since allowing a party to evade the consequences of the acts or omissions of his freely selected agent would be inconsistent with system of representative litigation.
Lawyer May Not Use Mistakenly Disclosed Confidential Information
Lawyer May Not Use Mistakenly Disclosed Confidential Information
Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp; When a lawyer inadvertently receives materials that obviously appear to be subject to attorney-client privilege or otherwise confidential and privileged, the lawyer must immediately notify the sender.
Litigation Hold To Prevent Spoilation
Litigation Hold To Prevent Spoilation
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC; Once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a litigation hold to ensure the preservation of relevant documents; spoliation.
Denial of Fair Trial Due to Unfair Publicity
Denial of Fair Trial Due to Unfair Publicity
Jovanovic v. City of New York; To prevail on a claim for denial of a fair trial due to prejudicial publicity, the plaintiff must establish (1) improper leaks; (2) in fact denied a fair trial; and (3) other remedies were not available or used to no avail.
Lawyer Liability For Misrepresentation
Lawyer Liability For Misrepresentation
Hoyt Properties, Inc. v. Production Resources Group, L.L.C; For an attorney statement in the course of representation to form the basis of a misrepresentation claim, the statement must be more than a legal opinion and must relate to actual facts.
Government Regulation of Candidate Speech
Government Regulation of Candidate Speech
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White; Government regulations suppress speech on basis of content must narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interest; first amendment.
Attorney Ethics Rules Reflect Public Policy
Attorney Ethics Rules Reflect Public Policy
Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int'l, Inc. In-house counsel may bring a common-law action for retaliatory discharge resulting compliance with Code of Professional Responsibility provision that represents a clear and definitive statement of public policy.
Representations By Opposing Counsel
Representations By Opposing Counsel
Fire Ins. Exchange v. Bell. Parties have a right to rely on the representations of opposing counsel as a matter of law.
Legal Malpractice Claims
Legal Malpractice Claims
Viner v. Sweet; plaintiff in a transactional malpractice action must show that but for the alleged malpractice, it is more likely than not that plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result; but-for causation.
Deceptive Investigation
Deceptive Investigation
United States v. Carona; the government may use deception in its investigations in order to induce suspects into making incriminating statements, even if reprensented by an attorney. California Rule 2-100.