Garvy v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that violation of ethics rules “has no relevance to the issue of whether the documents in question are protected by the attorney-client privilege”
• rejecting arguments against application of the attorney-client privilege when law firm sought legal advice concerning client’s legal malpractice claim while continuing to represent client
• extending work product protection to in-house counsel’s materials prepared in course of legal malpractice action brought by firm client
• “the fiduciary-duty exception does not . . . apply to legal advice rendered ... in anticipation of adversarial legal proceedings against the fiduciar/’
• violation of ethics rules “has no relevance to the issue of whether the documents in question are protected by the attorney-client privilege”
• “Illinois has not adopted the fiduciary-duty exception to the attorney-client privilege. The cases relied on * * * do not persuade us to create new law in Illinois by adopting it here.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).