Taking the Business out of Work Product Michele M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 2011 Taking the Business Out of Work Product Michele M. DeStefano Beardslee University of Miami School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, and the Litigation Commons Recommended Citation Michele M. DeStefano Beardslee, Taking the Business Out of Work Product, 80 Fordham L. Rev. 2791 (2011). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TAKING THE BUSINESS OUT OF WORK PRODUCT Michele DeStefano Beardslee* Over the past fifteen years, a common set of questions has surfaced in different areas of scholarship about the breadth of the corporate attorney's role: Should the corporate attorney provide business advice when providing legal advice? Should the corporate attorney provide counsel related to other disciplines such as public relations, social responsibility, morals, accounting, and/or investment banking? Should the corporate attorney prevent corporate wrongdoing? Questions like these resound in the scholarship addressing the risks and benefits of multi-disciplinary partnerships, gatekeeping, moral counseling, ancillary services, and the applicationof the attorney-clientprivilege. When looked at in combination, these segregated discussions equate to an unidentified but burgeoning debate about the proper role of the corporate attorney and whether a distinction can or should be made between doing business and practicing law. This debate also exists in court opinions assessing the reach of recent SEC regulations, the work product doctrine, and the attorney-client privilege. Indeed, the application of the doctrine assessing these issues provides a lens through which to view the tensions created by the increasingly transdisciplinaryand globalized role of the corporateattorney and the changing contours of litigation. To that end, by analyzing a sampling offederal court opinions that address the work product doctrine in the context of work related to public relations, this Article seeks to show that variations in how the doctrine is applied reflect disagreement about how expansive the role of today's corporate attorney and the definition of litigation should be. Further,given thatjudges can make decisions about work product protection based on their often narrow view of the proper role of an attorney as opposed to a businessperson, this Article argues that distinguishingbetween business and law when analyzing the work product doctrine is not only arbitraryand impossible in the corporate law context, but also inappropriate. This is clear when considering the history and purpose of the work product doctrine and the current application of the corporateattorney-client privilege. * Associate Professor of Law, University of Miami, School of Law. I thank Michael Bossone, Sergio Campos, Michael Graham, Bruce Green, Dennis Lynch, Austen L. Parrish, Andrew Perlman, Margaret Raymond, Robert Eli Rosen, and Gregory C. Sisk for advice and feedback. Also, I thank Peter Cunha for his research assistance. 1869 1870 FORDHAMLAWREVIEW [Vol. 79 Therefore, the more elementary goal of this Article is to offer a refined approach to the work product doctrine in the corporate law context to better align it with the reality of corporate practice, corporate litigation, and the expanded role of the corporate lawyer in today's society. Although this Article offers a preliminary recommendation for a new work product test, its primary recommendation is that courts take the business prong out of the work product analysis entirely so that (1) courts do not attempt to make a distinction between business and law when analyzing whether work is protectable and (2) the application of the doctrine does not hinge on a judge's view of how expansive corporatepractice or litigation is or should be. The more ambitious goal of this Article, however, is to urge those in the legal profession to begin a comprehensive discussion about the proper role of the corporate attorney and to consider whether, as the responsibilities and expectations of corporate lawyers grow, and as our definition of litigation expands, the law's protective doctrines shouldfollow suit. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. ..................................... ...... 1871 I. THE ROLE OF THE CONTEMPORARY CORPORATE ATTORNEY............ 1874 A. The Changing Realityfor the CorporateAttorney and the Illusive DistinctionBetween Business and Law..... .... 1874 B. The BurgeoningDebate Over the Role of the Corporate Attorney .................... ................ 1882 1. Multi-Disciplinary Partnerships ........... ....... 1882 2. Gatekeeping .................................... 1883 3. Moral Counseling ....................... .... 1885 4. Corporate Attorney-Client Privilege....... ......... 1887 5. Summary ............................ ..... 1890 II. OVERVIEW OF THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE ................ 1890 A. BriefHistory of the Work ProductDoctrine ..... ........ 1891 B. The Work ProductDoctrine Today ..................... 1894 1. The Basics ............................ ....1 895 a. What the Work ProductDoctrine Generally Protects....................... ........ 1895 b. Work Product vs. the Attorney-Client Privilege......... 1896 2. General Area of Debate: "In Anticipation of Litigation" or "Preparation for Trial " ................. ..... 1 900 a. Temporal Question.................. ....... 1901 b. The "PrimaryMotivating Purpose" Test, the "Because of" Test, and the Ordinary Course of Business Exception .......................... 1903 c. Materials Preparedby the Attorney Versus Materials PreparedBy Others . ............... 1907 III. THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE AS APPLIED TO WORK RELATED TO PUBLIC RELATIONS .......................... ...... 1 909 2011] TAKING THE BUSINESS OUT OF WORK PRODUCT 1871 A. The "PrimaryMotivating Factor" Test.................................. 1910 B. The "Becauseof' Test................... ........ 1912 C. The Ordinary Course ofBusiness Exception..... ....... 1 917 IV. ANALYSIS AND PRELIMINARY THOUGHTS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ................................. ..... 1922 A. Analysis ........................................ 1922 B. Possible Solutions and PreliminaryRecommendations ......... 1929 1. Analysis of Solutions Offered By Others ...... ..... 1931 2. Tentative Preliminary Recommendation ............ 1934 CONCLUSION ............................................. 1936 INTRODUCTION Although it may not be identified as such, a debate about the proper role of the corporate attorney has burgeoned over the past fifteen years. Arguably, the literature analyzing whether lawyers should be able to form multi-disciplinary partnerships; whether general counsels should act as gatekeepers; whether the attorney-client privilege should attach to communications with in-house counsel or apply to corporations at all; whether the attorney-client privilege should protect communications with third party consultants; and whether lawyers should provide moral counseling or ancillary services like public relations (PR) advice or financial consulting can all be encapsulated into one overarching debate about the proper role of the corporate attorney and whether a distinction can or should be made between the business of law and the business of business.' This debate is exemplified in the application of the work product doctrine. To date, however, scholars have not focused on this aspect of the doctrine. Instead, work product doctrine scholarship typically centers on analyzing the historical policy goals of the doctrine and the pros and cons of a broad versus a narrow shield. 2 This Article, however, takes a different tack and has different objectives. Through the exploration of a sample of federal opinions that address the work product doctrine in the context of PR work, 3 this Article seeks to make two showings. First, in analyzing the work product doctrine in the corporate context, courts attempt to make a distinction between business and law that is not only arbitrary and impossible to apply but also inappropriate given both the doctrine's history and the current application of the corporate attorney-client privilege. 1. See infra Part 1. 2. For just such an analysis, see generally Claudine Pease-Wingenter, Prophetic or Misguided?: The Fifth Circuit's (Increasingly) Unpopular Approach to the Work Product Doctrine, 29 REv. LITIG. 121, 125-40 (2009). 3. A search of Westlaw and LexisNexis turned up twenty-four cases that addressed work product in the context of public relations (PR), advertising, or marketing. In thirteen of these cases, judges provided work product protection to the work related to legal PR and in five of these cases, judges determined that the attorney-client privilege applied to the communications involving PR. This Article considers most of these cases in its analysis. 1872 FORDHAMLAW REVIEW [Vol. 79 Second, courts base the work product decision on their view of corporate practice, corporate litigation, and the role of the corporate attorney-which, in the legal PR context, appears to be quite narrow. Both of these contentions appear true regardless of which of the two main work product