Carmichael v. Jackson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that, where the attorney’s communications to the client were at issue, the work product doctrine did not protect the attorney’s file from discovery
• holding that the interests in attorney privacy yielded to the needs of the Secretary of Labor, as the representative of fund participants and beneficiaries, to discover material
• finding that “at this point, both DOL and the plan’s participants have exactly the same interest, securing complete disclosure in order to ferret out and discover any past wrongdoing affecting the Fund”
• requiring disclosure of attorney work product relating to ERISA trustees’ investment decisions, subject to good cause showing, “lest the work-product immunity swallow up the [fiduciary] exception in its entirety”
• to the extent that the advice of counsel is a critical area of inquiry in the case, the interests in attorney privacy must yield
• to the extent that the advice of counsel is a critical area of inquiry in the case, the interests in attorney privacy must yield

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).