Selective Use of Attorney-Client Privilege: Beware of Sword and Shield Doctrine, Especially When Attorneys Are Witnesses

$95.00

CLE credits earned: 1 GENERAL CREDIT (WA 1 Law and Legal)

Can a client invoke the attorney-client privilege to prevent inquiry into a particular subject in litigation but also rely on some otherwise privileged materials to win a point in dispute? Under the “sword-and-shield” doctrine concerning the waiver of the attorney-client privilege, this is unfair and not permitted. The Illinois Appellate Court recently explored the contours of this rule, previously articulated by the Illinois Supreme Court, in a case where claims were brought by insureds against an attorney and their insurer. This problem presents itself in situations where lawyers are witnesses, often concerning past transactions that are being litigated.

Key topics to be discussed:

•  The sword-and-shield rule.
•  Express and implied waiver of the attorney-client privilege.
•  Discovery and evidentiary issues relating to privileged documents.
•  The scope of subject matter waiver when a litigant uses privileged materials as a sword.
•  Practical considerations for clients and litigators.

Date / Time: October 26, 2020

•   3:00 pm – 4:00 pm Eastern
•   2:00 pm – 3:00 pm Central
•   1:00 pm – 2:00 pm Mountain
•   12:00 pm – 1:00 pm Pacific

Choose a format:

•   Live Video Broadcast/Re-Broadcast: Watch Program “live” in real-time, must sign-in and watch program on date and time set above. May ask questions during presentation via chat box. Qualifies for “live” CLE credit.
•   On-Demand Video: Access CLE 24/7 via on-demand library and watch program anytime. Qualifies for self-study CLE credit. On-demand versions are made available 24 hours after the original recording date and are view-able for up to one year.

Select your state to see if this class is approved for CLE credit.

Choose the format you want.

Clear

Original Broadcast Date: June 4, 2020

Matthew O’Hara is a Partner in the Litigation Practice Group and Co-Leader of the Complex Litigation Group. Matt is a business trial lawyer who concentrates his practice in the litigation and trial of complex commercial matters in federal and state courts and the representation of law firms and lawyers. He has tried cases involving the federal securities laws, antitrust laws, breach of fiduciary duty, trade secrets, trademark infringement, breach of contract, contract reformation, unjust enrichment, license agreements, executive employment, the Uniform Commercial Code, fraud, and criminal defense. Matt also litigates legal malpractice, private shareholder and partnership disputes, fraudulent transfers, defamation, and other commercial matters. He has represented clients in investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. He is also experienced in briefing and arguing state and federal appeals. In the legal industry, Matt represents law firms and lawyers in litigation, counseling, and disciplinary defense, and serves as an expert witness in cases involving legal ethics and professional liability. Before joining Freeborn, Matt was a Partner at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, where he served on the Executive Committee and as co-chair of the Lawyers Professional Liability practice group. Matt began his legal career in 1996 at Sachnoff & Weaver, Ltd., which merged with Reed Smith LLP in 2007. He served as a deputy general counsel to Reed Smith, advising the firm on ethics and risk management.

Accreditation Policy
myLawCLE seeks accreditation for all programs in all states. (Accreditation for paralegals sought thru NALA and NFPA paralegal associations.) Each attending attorney/paralegal will receive a certificate of completion following the close of the CLE program as proof of attendance. In required states, myLawCLE records attorney/paralegals attendance, in all other states attorney/paralegal is provided with the approved CLE certificate to submit to their state bar or governing association.

    Automatic MCLE Approvals

All myLawCLE CLE programs are accredited automatically either directly or via reciprocity in the following states: AK, AR, CA, CT, FL, HI, IL, MO, MT, ND, NH, NM, NJ, NY, and VT. (AZ does not approve CLE programs, but accepts our certificates for CLE credit.)

    Live Video Broadcasts

Live video broadcasts are new live CLE programs being streamed and recorded for the first time. All of these programs qualify for “Live” CLE credit in all states except NV, OH, MS, IN, UT, PA, GA, and LA —these states require in-person attendance to qualify for “Live” CLE credit.

    “Live” Re-Broadcasts

“Live” Re-broadcasts are replays of previous recorded CLE programs, set on a specific date and time and where the original presenting speakers calls in live at the end of the event to answer questions. This “live” element allows for “live” Re-broadcast CLEs to qualify for “Live” CLE credits in most states. [The following states DO NOT allow for “live” CLE credits on re-broadcast CLEs: NV, OH, MS, IN, UT, PA, GA, and LA]

Reciprocity
Many states allow for credit to be granted on a 1:1 reciprocal basis for courses approved in another mandatory CLE jurisdiction state. This is known as a reciprocity provision and includes the following states: AK, AR, HI, CT, FL, ME, MO, MT, ND, NH, NM, VT, NJ, and NY. myLawCLE does not seek direct accreditation of live webinars or teleconferences in these states.