FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W141576964> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W141576964 startingPage "285" @default.
• W141576964 abstract "Hardball tactics, such as taking attorneys' depositions and seeking settlement disclosures, can create bad law for both insurers and their insureds In insurance coverage litigation, there is a growing tendency to notice the depositions of coverage counsel, as well as underlying defense counsel. While this tactic generally is targeted at in-house counsel, outside counsel are not immune. Another increasingly popular tactic employed by insurers, particularly in large multi-party coverage litigation, is for non-settling insurers to seek disclosure of confidential settlement agreements reached between the policyholder and other insurance companies. Although these types of discovery appear to offer an immediate litigation advantage to the parties that employ them, in reality their use poses significant risks. They contribute significantly to a general weakening of the attorney-client, attorney work product, and settlement privileges. There should be a uniform standard for addressing these discovery requests, and there should be restraint by all parties because of the potential for these discovery tactics to backfire on those who employ them. Insurers and insureds have equally strong interests in preserving the sanctity of the attorney-client and work product privileges, in ensuring that their own liabilities are not increased as a result of coverage litigation, and in resolving disputes through settlement, not litigation. DEPOSITIONS OF COUNSEL A. State of the Law The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain no prohibition against the taking of an attorney's deposition, even of the attorney of record in a case. Rule 30(a)(1) allows for the taking of the deposition of any person, subject to various restrictions, none of which specifically exempts a party's attorney. State procedural rules likewise do not generally exempt attorneys from depositions.(1) Historically, the norms of professional courtesy have acted as a bar to the taking of attorney depositions.(2) The traditional reluctance to depose counsel also stems from a deeply ingrained respect for the importance of the attorney-client and work product privileges, from a need for the proper functioning of the adversary system, and from a recognition that most, if not all, information one would seek in such a deposition would be covered by these privileges. In holding that written statements prepared by counsel are protected by the work product doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Hickman v. Taylor: Historically, a lawyer is an officer of the court and is bound to work for the advancement of justice while faithfully protecting the rightful interests of his clients. In performing his various duties, however, it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel. Proper preparation of a client's case demands that he assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference.(3) Despite the well-established importance of these privileges, their sanctity has been threatened recently by an increase in the use of attorney depositions as a discovery tool and litigation tactic. As a basis for permitting these depositions, courts have relied on the facts that (1) they are not explicitly prohibited, (2) objections on the grounds of privilege are premature because that determination should be made based on the information sought to be elicited by specific questions, and (3) a lawyer may be the most efficient and logical source of the needed information.(4) Under Rule 26(b)(2), courts may limit discovery if it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. …" @default.
• W141576964 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W141576964 creator A5066973497 @default.
• W141576964 date "1997-04-01" @default.
• W141576964 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W141576964 title "Potential Discovery Abuses in Insurance Coverage Litigation" @default.
• W141576964 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W141576964 type Work @default.
• W141576964 sameAs 141576964 @default.
• W141576964 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W141576964 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W141576964 hasAuthorship W141576964A5066973497 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C145097563 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C18762648 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C2777063073 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C2778955637 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C2779913896 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C2780858371 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C538833194 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C71745522 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W141576964 hasConcept C90673727 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C10138342 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C127413603 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C144133560 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C145097563 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C160735492 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C17744445 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C18762648 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C199539241 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C2524010 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C2777063073 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C2778955637 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C2779913896 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C2780858371 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C33923547 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C538833194 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C71745522 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C78519656 @default.
• W141576964 hasConceptScore W141576964C90673727 @default.
• W141576964 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W141576964 hasLocation W1415769641 @default.
• W141576964 hasOpenAccess W141576964 @default.
• W141576964 hasPrimaryLocation W1415769641 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W1491968556 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W1539082372 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W1553346585 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W1568262874 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W1593999729 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W1981810885 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W2136380825 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W2218374494 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W2255914448 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W231347789 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W234574552 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W2464120794 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W2471229204 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W258287728 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W2986474008 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W3124143469 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W3124542219 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W338638063 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W213265803 @default.
• W141576964 hasRelatedWork W2598984262 @default.
• W141576964 hasVolume "64" @default.
• W141576964 isParatext "false" @default.
• W141576964 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W141576964 magId "141576964" @default.
• W141576964 workType "article" @default.