Work Product Doctrine

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Background

In order for the defense attorney to form a bond of trust with the client, the defense attorney must maintain confidential all communications with the client. The work product doctrine is one of two theories by which the confidentiality of communications with the client is protected. The second doctrine is the attorney-client privilege


Elements of the Work Product Doctrine

The work product doctrine protects statements, reports, notes, and other materials prepared by the criminal defense attorney in anticipation of, or during, litigation. Litigation need only be imminent and includes actions such as grand jury proceedings, investigations and administrative actions. [1]

The United States Supreme Court put forth this rationale for the work product doctrine in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947):

[The Work Product Doctrine] is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel. Proper preparation It of a client's case demands that he assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant go from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference.... This work is reflected of course, be in interviews, statements, memoranda, correspondence, briefs, mental impressions, personal beliefs, and countless other tangible and intangible ways.... </blockqote>


The work product doctrine is typically raised as a defense to a request for discovery from an opposing party such as the prosecutor or a collateral plaintiff in a civil action.

The work product doctrine is broader than the attorney-client privilege in that it protects additional materials that did not come about through client communication.

Work product can generally be classified as two types:

  1. Thoughts and Impressions -
  2. Factual Material -

Notes

  1. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 867 F.2d 539 (9th Cir. 1989) (grand jury investigation) and In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793 (D.C.Cir. 1982) (SEC and IRS investigations)

See Evidence, Ethics and Professional Responsibility

Notes