Wall v. North Hills Properties, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that work product revealing attorneys’ mental processes receives special protection, and that a stronger showing than “substantial need” is required to obtain such materials
• noting that the attorney-client privilege applies to communications to and from “Government employees at all levels,” just as it applies to communications from mid-level and lower-level employees in a corporation
• upholding assertion of work product privilege, and emphasizing that the work product doctrine is designed to ensure that the attorney “provide — at the first expectation of litigation — full, fair, and frank counsel to potential clients.”
• filing administrative claim carries entitles government to reasonable expectation of litigation
• “The [attorney-client] privilege also applies to communications with other agency lawyers who provide legal counsel in connection with the impending litigation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).