Legal education is the education of individuals who intend to become legal professionals or those who simply intend to use their law degree to some end, either related to law (such as politics or academic) or business. It includes:
Contents |
In addition to the qualifications required to become a practicing lawyer, legal education also encompasses higher degrees such as doctorates, for more advanced academic study.
In many countries other than the United States, law is an undergraduate degree. Graduates of such a program are eligible to become lawyers by passing the country's equivalent of a bar exam. In such countries, graduate programs in law enable students to embark on academic careers or become specialized in a particular area of law.
In the United States, law is a professional doctorate degree known as a Juris Doctor. Students embark upon only after completing an undergraduate degree in some other field (usually a bachelor's degree), and is considered to be a first professional degree program. The undergraduate degree can be in any field, though most American lawyers hold bachelor's degrees in the humanities and social sciences; legal studies as an undergraduate study is available at a few institutions. American law schools are usually an autonomous entity within a larger university.
Faculty of law is another name for a law school or school of law, the terms commonly used in the United States. This term is used in Canada, other Commonwealth countries and the rest of the world. It may be distinguishable from law school in the sense that a faculty is a subdivision of a university on the same rank with other faculties, i.e. faculty of medicine, faculty of graduate studies, whereas a law school or school of law may have a more autonomous status within a university, or may be totally independent of any other post-secondary educational institution.
In addition in some countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada and some states of Australia, the final stages of vocational legal education required to qualify to practice law are carried out outside the university system. The requirements for qualification as a barrister or as a solicitor are covered in those articles. See advocate for details of the requirements for qualification as an advocate in Scotland.
In Australia most reputable universities offer law as a (high school) graduate-entry course (LLB, 4 years), or combined degree course (e.g., BSc/LLB, BCom/LLB, BA/LLB, BE/LLB, 5–6 years). Some of these also offer a three-year postgraduate Juris Doctor(JD) program. Bond University [1] in Queensland runs three full semesters each year, teaching from mid-January to late December. This enables the Bond University Law Faculty to offer the LLB in the usual 8 semsters, but only 2 2/3 years. They also offer a JD in two years. The University of Technology, Sydney will from 2010 offer a 2 year accelerated JD program [2]
In 2008 the University of Melbourne introduced the Melbourne Model, whereby Law is only available as a graduate degree, with students having to have completed a three-year bachelor's degree (usually an Arts degree) before being eligible. Students in combined degree programs would spend the first 3 years completing their first bachelor degree together with some preliminary law subjects, and then spend the last 2-3 years completing the law degree. Alternatively, one can finish any bachelor degree, and providing their academic results are high, apply for graduate-entry into a 3-year LLB program. Some law schools are located at The Australian National University (ANU), Flinders University, Bond University, Macquarie, Monash, Deakin, UNSW, Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne, Queensland University of Technology, and the University of Queensland.
In Canada, the situation is somewhere between that of the U.S. and the majority of the rest of the world. The first-professional degree in law is the Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) or the Juris Doctor (J.D.) for common law jurisdictions and the Bachelor of Laws, Licenciate of Law or Bachelor of Civil Law for Quebec, a civil law jurisdiction. While technically most of Canada's common-law law schools will allow people to apply to study law after only two or three years of study in an undergraduate programme in another field, the vast majority of those who are admitted have already earned at least an undergraduate (bachelor's) degree. In the case of Quebec civil law degrees, students can be admitted after CEGEP. Some Canadian schools are considering transitioning from the LL.B. to J.D.[1][2]
Generally, entry into common-law LL.B. programs in Canada is based almost exclusively on a combination of the student's grades as well as their score on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). This is, at the time of writing, different from Medical School admission, where factors such as community involvement, personal character, extracurricular activities and references are taken into account, with the admission test (MCAT) having only a small influence on the admission decision. However, Osgoode Hall Law School, McGill University, University of Calgary and the University of Windsor law schools takes into account those personal factors. Quebec civil-law law schools do not require the LSAT, nor does Université de Moncton law school which offers the common-law LL.B. program in French only. In the case of the University of Ottawa's common-law law school, the LSAT is required for the program given in English but not for the program given in French. The requirement for the LSAT is likely because it is generally believed that a student who performs well on the LSAT will generally perform well both at law school as well as a legal practitioner. Most law schools receive far more applicants than they can accommodate; the examination offers admissions officers a simple and generally effective way to eliminate a large number of applicants from the pool.
Unlike the United States, all of Canada's law schools are affiliated with public universities, and are thus public institutions. There are no vast disparities in the quality of students (top students tend to stay within their respective regions for reasons of cost, with some schools having slightly stronger pull than others) and teaching at these institutions (as there are between tier 1 and tier 4 institutions in the US). Further, owing to strict limits place by provincial law societies on the number and quality of law graduates, entry to all Canadian law schools is intensely competitive. Many schools focus on their respective regions, as many graduates remain in the region in which the school is located. By virtue of the number of schools, Canadian law schools have stronger connections to their respective regions and provincial law societies than US schools. It is not unusual in some provinces for the majority of members of the Barreau (law society) to come from one or two schools in the area.
After completing the Juris Doctor, LL.B. or equivalent, students must article for one year. (In Quebec, "stage" is the equivalent to "articling".) This can be a challenge for those with lower grades, as there are often a shortage of articling positions and completion of articles is required to be able to practise law in Canada. Articling involves on the job training, for low pay, working under the supervision of a lawyer licensed by the Provincial Bar (e.g., the Law Society of British Columbia) who has been practising for a minimum of 5 years. After a year of articling and call to the bar, many students are hired by the same lawyer or firm for which they articled, some start their own independent practices while others choose to work for a different firm. Others may leave the private practice of law to work in government or industry as a lawyer or in a law-related position.
In Canada, the vast majority of lawyers do not seek an academic degree in law, such as a Master of Laws, unless they intend to become a professor at a law school or they are practising lawyers taking an LL.M. program geared to practising lawyers to gain or expand knowledge in a specialized area of law.
Law in France is studied in a law school which is an entity within a larger university.
Legal education starts immediately after high school (there are no French Grandes écoles in law).
Unlike the United States, French law schools are affiliated with public universities, and are thus public institutions.
As a consequence, law schools are required to admit anyone holding the baccalauréat however the failure rate is extremely high (up to 70%) during the first two years of the "licence de droit".
There are no vast disparities in the quality of French law schools. Many schools focus on their respective city and region.
The law school program is divided following the European standards for university studies (Bologna process) :
The first year of the master program (M1) is specialized : public law, private law, business law, European and international law, etc
The second year of the master of law program (M2) can be work-oriented or research oriented (the students write a substantial thesis and can apply to doctoral programs - PhD Law -).
The second year is competitive (entry is based on the student's grades and overall score and on extracurricular activities) and generally more specialized (IP law, contract law, civil liberties, etc).
You need to pass a specific examination to enter bar school (CRFPA, école du barreau). You must have successfully finished the first year of a Master of law (M1 or maitrise de droit) to be able to attend.
If you succeed, then after 18 months (school, practical aspects, ethics and internship) you will pass the CAPA exam and diploma(Certificat d'Aptitude à la Profession d'Avocat). You will also need to take the Oath.
In Hong Kong law can be studied as a four-year undergraduate degree (LLB), a three-year postgraduate degree (Juris Doctor), or the Common Professional Examination conversion course for non-law graduates. One must then pass the one-year Postgraduate Certificate in Laws (PCLL) currently offered at the University of Hong Kong, Chinese University of Hong Kong and City University of Hong Kong, before starting vocational training: a year's pupillage for barristers or a two-year training contract for solicitors.
The move to a four-year LLB was recent and, in the case of HKU, was aimed at shifting some of the more theoretical aspects of the HKU PCLL onto the LLB, leaving more room for practical instruction.
In India, legal education has been traditionally offered as a three years graduate degree. However the structure has been changed since 1987. Law degrees in India are granted and conferred in terms of the Advocates Act, 1961, which is a law passed by the Parliament both on the aspect of legal education and also regulation of conduct of legal profession. Under the Act, the Bar Council of India is the supreme regulatory body to regulate the legal profession in India and also to ensure the compliance of the laws and maintenance of professional standards by the legal profession in the country.
To this regard, the Bar Council of India prescribes the minimum curriculum required to be taught in order for an institution to be eligible for the grant of a law degree. The Bar Council also carries on a period supervision of the institutions conferring the degree and evaluates their teaching methodology and curriculum and having determined that the institution meets the required standards, recognizes the institution and the degree conferred by it.
Traditionally the degrees that were conferred carried the title of LL.B. (Bachelor of Laws) or B.L. (Bachelor of Law). The eligibility requirement for these degrees was that the applicant already have a Bachelor's degree in any subject from a recognized institution. Thereafter the LL.B. / B.L. course was for three years, upon the successful completion of which the applicant was granted either degree.
However upon the suggestion by the Law Commission of India and also given the prevailing cry for reform the Bar Council of India instituted upon an experiment in terms of establishing specialized law universities solely devoted to legal education and thus to raise the academic standards of legal profession in India. This decision was taken somewhere in 1985 and thereafter the first law University in India was set up in Bangalore which was named as the National Law School of India University (popularly 'NLS'). These law universities were meant to offer a multi-disciplinary and integrated approach to legal education. It was therefore for the first time that a law degree other than LL.B. or B.L. was granted in India. NLS offered a five years law course upon the successful completion of which an integrated degree with the title of "B.A.,LL.B. (Honours)" would be granted. Thereafter other law universities were set up, all offering five years integrated law degree with different nomenclature. The next in line was NALSAR university of law set up in 1998. The National Law University, Jodhpur offered for the first time in 2001 the integrated law degree of "B.B.A, LL.B. (Honours)" which was preceded by the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences offering the "B.Sc., LL.B. (Honours)" degree. The Prestigious M.S. University has also started Baroda School of Legal Studies since 2005, which also offers 5 years integrated law course. It has a uniqueness of having computer applications and yoga & stress management as subjects. Another achievement in this field was the setting up of National Law University, Delhi (Official Website) at New Delhi, the first national law school of the capital.
However despite these specialized law universities, the traditional three year degree continues to be offered in India by other institutions and are equally recognized as eligible qualifications for practicing law in India. Another essential difference that remains is that while the eligibility qualification for the three year law degree is that the applicant must already be a holder of a Bachelor's degree, for being eligible for the five years integrated law degree, the applicant must have successfully completed Class XII from a recognized Boards of Education in India.
Both the holders of the three year degree and of the five year integrated degree are eligible for enrollment with the Bar Council of India upon the fulfillment of eligibility conditions and upon enrollment, may appear before any court in India.
The Japanese legal education system is driven more by examination than by formal schooling. The profession of barristers, known as bengoshi, is highly regulated, and the passage rate for the bar exam is around three percent. Prospective attorneys who do pass the exam must take it three or four times before passing it, and a number of specialized "cram schools" exist for prospective lawyers. After passing the bar exam, prospective barristers undergo a 16-month training period at the Legal Research and Training Institute of the Supreme Court of Japan. The training period has traditionally been devoted to litigation practice and virtually no training is given for other aspects of legal practice, e.g. contract drafting, legal research. During this period, the most "capable trainees" are "selected out" to become career judges; others may become prosecutors or private practitioners.
In 2004, the Japanese Diet passed a law allowing for the creation of three-year law schools (法科大学院 hōka daigakuin). The 2006 bar examination was first in Japanese history to require a law school degree as a prerequisite. In the past, although there has been no educational requirement, most of those who passed the examination had earned undergraduate degrees from "elite" Japanese universities such as the University of Tokyo, Kyoto University or Hitotsubashi University.
Since 2004, the J.D. degree is also awarded in Japan, the only civil law country to do so, where it is known as Hōmu Hakushi (法務博士).
A number of other law-related professions exist in Japan, such as patent agents (benrishi), tax accountants (zeirishi), scriveners, etc., entry to each of which is governed by a separate examination. It should be noted that attorneys ("bengoshi"), being qualified to practice any law, can automatically be qualified as patent agents and tax accountants with no additional examination, but not vice versa.
Similar to the Japanese legal education system, the legal education in Korea has been driven by examination. The profession of barristers, is highly regulated, and the passage rate for the bar exam is around five percent. Prospective attorneys who do pass the exam usually take it two or three times before passing it, and a number of specialized "cram schools" exist for prospective lawyers. After passing the bar exam, prospective barristers undergo a two-year training period at the Judicial Research and Training Institute of the Supreme Court of Korea. During this period, the most capable trainees are "selected out" to become career judges; others may become prosecutors or private practitioners.
In 2007, the Korean government passed a law allowing for the creation of three-year law schools (법학전문대학원). According to the new law, the old system of selecting lawyers by examination will be phased out. The U.S.-style law schools will be a sole route to become a lawyer.
In February 2008, the Ministry of Education of Korea selected 25 universities to open law schools. The total enrollment for all law schools is capped at 2,000, which is a source of contention between the powerful Korea Bar Association, and citizen groups and school administrators. There is an uproar among the schools which failed to get the government's approval and even among the schools that did get the approval, there is dissatisfaction due to an extremely low enrollment number. Several law schools are permitted to enroll 40 students per year, which is far below the financially sustainable number. Once a student has graduated from law school he or she is expected to pursue admission to the bar in order to practice.
A number of other legal professions exist in Korea, such as patent attorneys (변리사), tax attorneys (세무사), scriveners(법무사), etc., entry to each of which is governed by a separate examination.
To become a lawyer in Serbia, students must graduate from an accredited faculty of law. Studies last for five years (ten semesters) in accordance to the Bologna Convention. To become a student of the faculty of law, a candidate must pass the admission test. Students are divided into full-time students and part-time students. The practical training for students is organized at courts of law, and local and international moot court competitions. A lawyer must pass the national bar examination to become an attorney, a judge, or a prosecutor.
In order to practice law in Sri Lanka a lawyer must be admitted and enrolled as an Attorney-at-Law of the Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. To receive Admission to the bar a law student must complete law exams held by the Sri Lanka Law College and undergo a period of apprenticeship under a practicing lawyer. There are two routes taken by students;
Both groups of students must undergo a period of apprenticeship under a practicing lawyer. To become a judge one must be admitted as an Attorney-at-Law.
Law degree programs are considered graduate programs in the Philippines. As such, admission to law schools requires the completion of a bachelor's degree, with a sufficient number of credits or units in certain subject areas.
Graduation from a Philippine law school constitutes the primary eligibility requirement for the Philippine Bar Examinations, administered by the Supreme Court during the month of September every year.
In order to be eligible to take the bar examinations, one must complete either of the two professional degrees: The Bachelor of Laws (Ll.B.) program or the Juris Doctor (J.D.) program. Advanced degrees are offered by some law schools, but are not requirements for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.
Legal education in the Philippines normally proceeds along the following route:
In England and Wales, law can be studied as an undergraduate degree or in a Graduate Diploma in Law where students complete the Common Professional Examination. After obtaining the degree it is necessary to complete certain vocational courses and to serve a period of on the job training before one is able to qualify to practice as a barrister, legal executive, or solicitor.
The Education of Lawyers in the United States is generally undertaken through a law school program.
The professional degree granted by U.S. law schools is the Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence (J.D.). Once a prospective lawyer has been awarded the J.D. (or other appropriate degree), he or she is usually required to pass a state bar examination in order to be licensed to practice as an Attorney at Law. Historically, as many as 32 states have recognized a diploma privilege method of bar admission which does not require sitting for a bar exam. As of mid-2007, Wisconsin and Vermont are the only states that continue to recognize this privilege.
The Doctor of Jurisprudence or Juris Doctor (J.D.), like the Doctor of Medicine (M.D.), is a professional doctorate. The Doctor of Juridical Science (J.S.D.), and Doctor of Comparative Law (D.C.L.), are research and academic-based doctorate level degrees. In the U.S. the Legum Doctor (LL.D.) is only awarded as an honorary degree.
Academic degrees for non-lawyers are available at the baccalaureate and master's level. A common baccalaureate level degree is a Bachelor of Science in Legal Studies (B.S.). Academic master's degrees in legal studies are available, such as the Master of Studies (M.S.), and the Master of Professional Studies (M.P.S.). Such a degree is not required to enter a J.D. program.
Foreign lawyers seeking to practice in the U.S., who do not have a Juris Doctor (J.D.), often seek to obtain a Master of Laws (LL.M.) (or other degrees similar to the LL.M., such as the Juris Master (J.M.), Master of Comparative Law (M.C.L.) and Master of Jurisprudence (M.J.)).
Legal education in the United States normally proceeds along the following route:
A number of law students apply for an optional judicial clerkship (less than 10% end up in such position), to be taken after law school and before legal practice. Some take the bar exam before a clerkship but this is not required, clerkships usually last one year with appellate courts, but trial level courts (including federal district court) are increasingly moving towards two-year clerkships.
A law school is an institution where prospective lawyers obtain legal degrees. In the United States, law is a graduate degree, the pursuit of which students undertake only after having completed an undergraduate degree in some other field (usually a bachelor's degree). The law school program is considered to be a graduate or professional school program. The undergraduate degree can be in any field, though most American lawyers hold bachelor's degrees in the humanities and social sciences. American law schools are usually an autonomous entity within a larger university.
In most other countries, law is an undergraduate degree and graduates of such a program are eligible to become lawyers by passing the country's equivalent of a bar exam. In such countries, graduate programs in law enable students to embark on academic careers or become specialized in a particular area of law.
In most cases the degree awarded by American law schools is the Doctor of Jurisprudence or Juris Doctor(J.D.), degree. In contrast, the LL.B. degree is still the standard qualification in other common law jurisdictions, mostly in the Commonwealth of Nations. Research degrees that are awarded include the Master of Laws (LL.M.) and Doctor of Juridical Science degrees (J.S.D. or S.J.D.).
Once a student has graduated from law school he or she is expected to pursue admission to the bar in order to practice. Requirements for membership in the bar vary across the United States. Once admitted, most attorneys must meet certain Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements.
|
||||||||
Bold text Welcome to the Faculty of Law. Here you will courses related to the study of law in general.
Courses Available: Introduction to Law 101
new courser: Discovery Privileges
SUBJECT: DISCOVERY PRIVILEGES UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE--Tonyd 19:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that discovery may be had
regarding any matter not privileged. Rule 26(b)(5) requires that
the party asserting a privilege must make the claim expressly and
describe the nature of the documents, communications or things not
produced or disclosed in a manner that without revealing
information itself privileged or protected, will enable other
parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.
Withholding materials without providing the information required by
Rule 26(b)(5) subjects the attorney to sanctions under Rule
37(b)(2) and may be viewed as a waiver of the privilege or
protection.
The privileges were once sought to be codified in Rules 501-510, of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), but Congress declined to adopt them. See Advisory Committee Notes to 1974 enactment. While these privileges were not adopted, Rule 501, as adopted, Pub. L. 93-595, '1, states:
Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United
States or provided by Act of Congress or in rules prescribed by the
Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority, the privilege of a
witness, person, government, State or political subdivision thereof
shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may
be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of
reason and experience. However, in civil actions and proceedings,
with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State
law supplies the rule of decision, the privilege of a witness,
person, government, State or political subdivision thereof shall be
determined in accordance with State law.
Federal courts therefore have the flexibility to adopt new common
law privileges, on a case by case basis, pursuant to Rule 501, FRE.
Jaffee v. Redmond, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996) (adopting
psychotherapist-patient privilege in Federal civil cases); see,
University of Pa. v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182, 189, 110 S.Ct. 577, 582
(1990) (declining to adopt a privilege for peer review in an
employment discrimination context). The privileges available are
set forth below. Obviously, some are more useful than others in the
context of Federal employment matters.
1. Required reports privileged by statute, e.g.,:
a. 5 U.S.C. '552a (Privacy Act, covering systems of records kept by the Federal government and accessible by a personal identifier, but many exemptions).
b. 5 U.S.C. '7362 and 42 U.S.C. '290dd-3 (confidentiality of medical records concerning alcoholism, alcohol abuse and treatment).
c. 13 U.S.C. '9 (prohibiting disclosure of census information.
d. 26 U.S.C. '6103 (income tax returns)
e. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(b), -5(e) and -8(e) (prohibiting disclosure of charges, investigations conciliation efforts and statistical reports of individual companies).
f. 42 U.S.C. '2240 (reports of incidents at nuclear facility licensees inadmissible in certain actions).
g. 42 U.S.C. '3610(d)(1) (prohibiting disclosure of conciliation efforts, but not the agreement, unless confidentiality is specified in the agreement).
h. 45 U.S.C. '33, 41 (similar reports of accidents by railroads).
2. Attorney-client privilege. See Upjohn Co., et al. v. United
States, et al., 449 U.S. 383, 101 S.Ct. 677 (1981)(discussing
privilege in the corporate context); CFTC v. Weintraub, 471 U.S.
343, 105 S.Ct. 343 (1985) (discussing who can waive the privilege);
U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 562, 109 S.Ct. 2619, 2626 (1989); In Re
Grand Jury Proceedings, 43 F.3d 966, 970 (5th Cir. 1994); McKenzie
v. McCormick, 27 F.3d 1415, 1420 (9th Cir. 1994). This privilege
may exist between two Federal agencies. Thill Securities Corp. v.
New York Stock Exchange, 57 FRD 133 (E.D. Wis. 1972). However, the
confidentiality of communications covered by a privilege must be
jealously guarded by the holder of the privilege lest it be waived.
In Re Sealed Case, 877 F.2d 976, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1989). See, Gray v.
Bicknell, 86 F.3d 1472, 1483-84 (8th Cir. 1995), for discussion of
approaches to waiver of attorney client privilege. A party may
overcome the privilege when it can demonstrate that the crime/fraud
exception applies. In Re: Sealed Case, __F.3d__ (D.C. Cir. March 4,
19977, No. 96-3085). That exception applies where: 1) the client
made or received an otherwise privileged communication with the
intent to further an unlawful or fraudulent act and 2) the client
must have carried out the crime or fraud. Ibid.
3. Joint Defense Privilege (multiparty litigation). This privilege is an extension of the attorney-client privilege. The doctrine provides that communications between and among persons and their respective legal counsel, who share a common interest in presenting or defending a claim, are protected from disclosure. The party asserting this privilege must establish all of the elements of the attorney-client privilege and the additional requirement that the communication in question was made in the course of a common effort and to further a common interest. In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 89-3 and 89-4, 902 F.2d 244 (4th Cir. 1990); United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 810 (1990); United States v. Lopez, 777 F.2d 543 (10th Cir. 1985) (waiver of privilege); United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 833 (1979) (whether legal interests must be identical or only compatible); Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1964).
4. Deliberative process privilege (intergovernmental opinions and recommendations submitted in the performance of decisional or policymaking functions). Freeman v. Seligson, 405 F.2d 1326 (D.C. Cir. 1968); Davis v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 363 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1966); Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. V.E.B. Carl Zeiss, Jena, 40 FRD 318 (D.D.C. 1966); aff'd per curiam sub nom. V.E. B. Carl Zeiss, Jena v. Clark, 384 F.2d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 952 (1967); Machin v. Zuchert, 316 F.2d 336 (D.C. Cir.), cert denied, 375 U.S. 896 (1963); Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. United States, 157 F.Supp. 939 (Ct.Cl. 1958); see, Ackerly v. Ley, 420 F.2d 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1969). (consistent with fifth exemption of Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. '552(b)(5)). This privilege must be invoked by the head of the agency. See, Thill, supra. The bank examiner qualified privilege is also included within the deliberative process privilege. In Re: Supoena Served Upon the Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of the Bd. of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, __F.2d __(D.C. Cir. 1992).
5. Executive Privilege (Presidential communications). United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 708, 94 S.Ct. 3090 (1974); In Re: Sealed Case, __F.3d__(D.C. Cir. June 17, 1997, No. 96-3124)(detailing explanation and history of Presidential Communications privilege and distinguishing it from deliberative process privilege).
6. Jenks Act, 18 U.S.C. '3500. Usually, in criminal cases, statements or reports in possession of U.S. made by a Government witness shall not be subject to a subpoena, discovery or inspection until the witness has testified on direct examination at trial. However, some agencies utilize the procedures of the Jenks Act in civil matters before an ALJ. See, e.g., 7 C.F.R. '1.141(g)(1)(iii). What is covered by the Jenks Act and its purpose are discussed in such cases as: Norisberg Corp. v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 47 F.3d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 474; Blackfoot Livestock Com'n v. USDA, 810 F.2d 916 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. Carrasco, 537 F.2d 372 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. Prieto, 505 F.2d 8 (5th Cir. 1974).
7. Identity of informer, civil cases. Dole v. Local 1942, IBEW, 870 F.2d 368 (7th Cir. 1989) (good discussion); Wirtz v. Continental Finance and Loan Co., 326 F.2d 561 (5th Cir. 1964); Wirtz v. B.A.C. Steel Products, Inc., 312 F.2d 14 (4th Cir. 1962); Mitchell v. Roma, 265 F.2d 633 (3d. Cir. 1959). But note, only the identity of the informer is privileged, not the communication itself, unless disclosure would operate to disclose the informer's identity. Brock v. On Shore Quality Control Specialists, Inc., 811 F.2d 282 (5th Cir. 1987); Wirtz v. Robinson & Stephens, Inc., 368 F.2d 114 (5th Cir. 1966); see, Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623 (1957).
8. Work-product privilege. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 67 S.Ct. 385 (1947); Rule 26(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Upjohn Co., et al. v. United States, et al., 449 U.S. 383, 101 S.Ct. 677 (1981). Applied to federal attorneys. See, NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 412 U.S. 191, 154, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 1518 (1975), citing Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp v. United States, 157 F.Supp 939, 946-947 (Ct.Cl. 1958).
9. Self-critical analysis privilege. A qualified privilege tha allows businesses to candidly assess their compliance with regulatory and legal requirements without creating evidence that may be used against them by their opponents in future litigation. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Textron, Inc., __F. Supp. __(N.D. Fla. 1994), 1994 WL 532165; Bredice v. Doctor's Hospital, Inc., 50 FRD 249 (D.D.C. 1970), aff'd without op., 479 F.2d 920 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Banks v. Lockheed-Georgia Co., 53 FRD 283 (N.D. Ga. 1971); In Re Crazy Eddie Securities Litigation, 792 F. Supp. 197 (E.D. N.Y. 1992); Keyes v. Lenoir Rhyne College, 552 F.2d 579 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 904 (1977); Lloyd v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 74 FRD 555 (E.D. Tenn 1977). But see policy considerations discussed in University of Pa. supra, militating against use of the self-critical analysis privilege in the EEO context.
10. Secrets of state and military secrets. United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 73 S.Ct. 528 (1953); Carl Zeiss, supra.
11. Trade secrets. Cases on trade secrets are: E.I. Du Pont de Nemours v. Masland, 244 U.S. 100, 37 S.Ct. 575 (1917); Tavoulareas v. The Washington Post Co., 724 F.2d 1010, 1017-1019 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Paul v. Sinnott, 217 F.Supp. 84 (W.D. Pa. 1963). See also 18 U.S.C. '1905 (prohibiting disclosure of trade secrets by government officials).
12. Grand jury privilege. United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 78 S.Ct. 983 (1958); see, Douglas Oil Co. of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211 (1979).
13. Psychotherapist-patient privilege. Counseling sessions between licensed psychiatrist or psychologist and patient and counseling sessions between licensed clinical social worker and patient. Recently adopted in Jaffee v. Redmond, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996).
14. Husband-wife privilege. SEC v. Levin, __F.3d__ (D.C. Cir. May 2, 1997, No. 96-5286).
15. Communications to clergy (priest-penitent) privilege.
16. Political vote privilege.
17. Doctor-patient privilege.
18. Researcher's or scholar's privilege. A qualified privilege principally to protect the interest of the researcher in not having the results of his or her research disclosed prematurely. Deitchman v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc, 740 F.2d 556, 560-561 (7th Cir. 1984); Dow Chemical Co. v. Allen, 672 F.2d 1262, 1274-1276 (7th Cir. 1982); but see, In Re American Tobacco Co., 880 F.2d 1520 (2d Cir. 1989); Burka v. U.S. Dpet. of Health and Human Services, 87 F.3d 508 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Smith v. Dow Chemical Co., 173 F.R.D. 54, 57 (W.D.N.Y. 1997); Wilkinson v. FBI, 111 F.R.D. 42 (C.D. Cal. 1986).
A privilege log must be issued by the party claiming privilege, by
specifically identifying each document or communication to be
protected and the typoe of privilege or protection being asserted.
See, e.g., Burns v. Imagine Films Entertainment, Inc., 164 F.R.D.
589, 594 (W.D.N.Y. 1996).
|
|
Wikis
Search
