In reply to: Ropes & Gray's report re USAG (Nassar-focused) posted by Bruno95
The privilege protects communications, not identities. If the client states that a policy was developed with counsel, the lawyer cannot invoke the privilege to deny the fact of his involvement. If the client says a lawyer received/reviewed given reports, no privilege shields the lawyer from identifying himself as the person in question.
I don’t know about Baker Daniels’s or Swarbrick’s legal exposure, though I’d be surprised if the firm isn’t sued. I think the later attorney, Himsel, is in deep shit.
The client is the association, not the former officers. If the new officers of the association waive the privilege then Jack has to answer.
would spousal privilege than apply?
enterprises, certainly not when significant harm to a person will occur.
Jack probably thinks he did all he could when he unsuccessfully counseled USAG to remove accused trainers. USAG said no thank you, we shan’t report and we shan’t remove anyone unless and until they are convicted of a felony.
But at that point there was a good deal of evidence that an entrenched ring of bad actors was operating and would continue to operate. Lawyers not only are released from attorney-client privilege in that event, but are required to go to the authorities.
Give it up with the the Colonel Klink defense, Savvy.
in harmonica’s excellent summary.
I might have given Jack too much credit there.
I didn't come here to be called a liar.
A nice set of objections throughout.
That pompous ass and his attorney corrected the opposing counsel multiple times when they referred to him as an athletic director. "Director of Athletics"! They insisted.
Once, maybe. Several times for something so small and petty?
Appears to have worked. Can't believe what that guy allowed JS to get away with. I bet the discussions with JS's lawyer leading up to the deposition were a hoot. DO YOU KNOW WHO YOU'RE DEALING WITH?!?!
Why so edgy Jack?
not sure if any threatened motions were actually filed.
...oh, it’s the name of a person on the transcript.
Carry on.
Or do you think he needed to do a better job of handling bullshit objections?
I think he should have just terminated the deposition.
Savvy out of the room.
when a judge is to be called. Doesn't really matter. Make a record, call the judge, just don't take a useless deposition. The lawyer may well have been just making a record that the lawyer and the witness were not cooperating. He may have had other fish to fry, he may have had a strategy.
I have no idea what he was doing in response to the objections beyond floundering. Moreover, if the listing of counsel at the outset is accurate, it appears that two lawyers are representing the same co-defendant clients. If so, why are they being allowed to tag team on objections?
Still not really sure what it all means after reading that twice.