attorney work product doctrine (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

attorney work product doctrine in Washington

15 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2019 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
United States v. Monroe Adlman, as Officer and Representative of Sequa Corporationgreen
ca2 · 1998 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006The parties here dispute the definition of work product on these facts. ¶17 The attorney work product doctrine first appears in Hickman v. Taylor. 1 It is intended “to preserve a zone of privacy in which a lawyer can prepare and develop legal theories and strategy ‘with an eye toward litigation,’ free from unnecessary intrusion by his adversaries.” United States v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 1196 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 , 67 S. Ct. 385 , 91 L.

2006The parties here dispute the definition of work product on these facts. ¶ 17 The attorney work product doctrine first appears in Hickman v. Taylor . [1] It is intended "to preserve a zone of privacy in which a lawyer can prepare and develop legal theories and strategy `with an eye toward litigation,' free from unnecessary intrusion by his adversaries." United States v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 1196 (2d Cir.1998) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)).

22
Coastal States Gas Corporation v. Department of Energygreen
cadc · 1980 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
1 sentence

1981(Citations omitted.) Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 862 (D.C.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

CaseCitedYears
Hickman v. Taylor green
scotus · 1947
2 sentences

2017We next briefly review how attorney work product protections arose and how those protections have been preserved in our state civil rules: The attorney work product doctrine first appears in Hickman v. Taylor[, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S. Ct. 385 , 91 L.

2017We next briefly review how attorney work product protections arose and how those protections have been preserved in our state civil rules: The attorney work product doctrine first appears in Hickman v. Taylor[, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S. Ct. 385 , 91 L.

42006–2018
Doehne v. EmPres Healthcare Management, LLC green
washctapp · 2015
2 sentences

2019Id. at 283-84 .

2019Id. at 283-84 .

22019–2019
Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa green
wash · 1982
2 sentences

2010Id.

2010Id.

22010–2010
United States v. Nobles green
scotus · 1975
2 sentences

2002United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 , 95 S. Ct. 2160 , 45 L.

2002United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 , 95 S. Ct. 2160 , 45 L.

22002–2002
Limstrom v. Ladenburg green
washctapp · 2002
1 sentence

2017App. 133 , 39 P.3d 351 (2002) for the proposition that the attorney work product privilege is waived by sharing a protected document with a third person outside of the attorney-client privilege.

12017–2017
Harris v. Drake green
wash · 2004
1 sentence

2017Harris v. Drake, 152 Wn.2d at 486 .

12017–2017
Pappas v. Holloway green
wash · 1990
2 sentences

2017In Pappas v. Holloway, 114 Wn.2d 198,212 , 787 P.2d 30 (1990), our state high court noted that the attorney work product doctrine does not afford absolute immunity from disclosure of attorney opinions and thoughts.

2017In Pappas v. Holloway, 114 Wn.2d 198,212 , 787 P.2d 30 (1990), our state high court noted that the attorney work product doctrine does not afford absolute immunity from disclosure of attorney opinions and thoughts.

12017–2017
Musselman v. Phillips green
mdd · 1997
1 sentence

2017Lamonds v. General Motors Corp., 180 F.R.D. at 305 ; Musselman v. Phillips, 176 F.R.D. at 201 ; Karn v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 168 F.R.D. at 635.

12017–2017
Lamonds v. General Motors Corp. green
vawd · 1998
1 sentence

2017Lamonds v. General Motors Corp., 180 F.R.D. at 305 ; Musselman v. Phillips, 176 F.R.D. at 201 ; Karn v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 168 F.R.D. at 635.

12017–2017
Limstrom v. Ladenburg green
washctapp · 2002
1 sentence

2016Limstrom v. Ladenburg, 110 Wn.

12016–2016
State v. Boyd green
wash · 2007
1 sentence

2010Id. at 171-72 . ¶ 30 It is unusual for a defense expert to submit a declaration that is in all pertinent respects a legal brief on behalf of the defendant.

12010–2010
Limstrom v. Ladenburg green
wash · 1998
1 sentence

2001Although the decision related to the attorney work product rule under CR 26(b)(4), it nevertheless is authority for the limited statement cited. [37] CR 26(a). [38] CR 26(b)(1). [39] See CR 1 and 2. [40] See Limstrom, 136 Wash.2d at 608-09 , 963 P.2d 869 .

12001–2001
Limstrom v. Ladenburg green
wash · 1998
1 sentence

2001Although the decision related to the attorney work product rule under CR 26(b)(4), it nevertheless is authority for the limited statement cited. [37] CR 26(a). [38] CR 26(b)(1). [39] See CR 1 and 2. [40] See Limstrom, 136 Wash.2d at 608-09 , 963 P.2d 869 .

12001–2001
Dawson v. Daly green
wash · 1993
2 sentences

2001"Cases interpreting FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] are relevant when we are interpreting our state act." Dawson, 120 Wash.2d at 791-92 , 845 P.2d 995 .

2001"Cases interpreting FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] are relevant when we are interpreting our state act." Dawson, 120 Wash.2d at 791-92 , 845 P.2d 995 .

12001–2001
Heidebrink v. Moriwaki green
wash · 1985
2 sentences

1991The basis for the privilege under (l)(j) is the attorney work-product privilege as set forth in Heidebrink v. Moriwaki, 104 Wn.2d 392 , 706 P.2d 212 (1985) and the attorney-client privilege based on RCW 5.60.050(2). [ 3 ] On February 15, 1990, Overlake filed a petition for an order to show cause requiring Bellevue to demonstrate why it should not produce the requested documents.

1991The basis for the privilege under (l)(j) is the attorney work-product privilege as set forth in Heidebrink v. Moriwaki, 104 Wn.2d 392 , 706 P.2d 212 (1985) and the attorney-client privilege based on RCW 5.60.050(2). [ 3 ] On February 15, 1990, Overlake filed a petition for an order to show cause requiring Bellevue to demonstrate why it should not produce the requested documents.

11991–1991

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 5.60.060 (6) USC § 42u.s.c.1983 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 72 (1979–2026) PA 37 (1973–2025) NY 31 (1984–2025) TX 27 (1990–2025) WA 15 (1981–2019) OH 13 (2006–2025) NJ 10 (1962–2024) MD 10 (1984–2021) CT 8 (1992–2011) CO 7 (1982–2020) LA 7 (1997–2025) NH 6 (1986–2025) IL 5 (1989–2007) FL 4 (2004–2018) VA 4 (1990–2005) VT 4 (1998–2025) IN 3 (1990–1997) SC 3 (2010–2016) NC 3 (2000–2012) MS 3 (1992–2010) MA 3 (1996–2015) WI 2 (1988–2025) WV 2 (1996–2015) AK 2 (1968–1982) GA 2 (2013–2016) DC 2 (2005–2015) WY 2 (2014–2014) UT 2 (2001–2020) AZ 2 (1992–2023) KY 2 (2006–2020) MI 2 (1999–2025) DE 2 (2019–2026)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check