La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos

El artículo se centra en el estudio de la figura del crime fraud exception o “excepción por delito o fraude”, creada en los Estados Unidos, que tiene como fin ser una herramienta para combatir la corrupción, mediante la eliminación, en ciertos casos, de la reserva de la doctrina de producto del abog...

Full description

Autores:
Bartholomew, Christine P.
Tipo de recurso:
Article of journal
Fecha de publicación:
2023
Institución:
Universidad Externado de Colombia
Repositorio:
Biblioteca Digital Universidad Externado de Colombia
Idioma:
spa
OAI Identifier:
oai:bdigital.uexternado.edu.co:001/15302
Acceso en línea:
https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/handle/001/15302
https://doi.org/10.18601/01210483.v44n117.06
Palabra clave:
attorney-client privilege,
attorney product doctrine,
reservation,
crime or fraud exception,
corruption,
evidence,
ethics
privilegio abogado-cliente,
doctrina del producto del abogado,
reserva,
excepción por delito o fraude,
corrupción,
evidencia,
ética
Rights
openAccess
License
Christine P. Bartholomew - 2023
id uexternad2_9d95ff1fab173a54fe311ea3a7a9c2e0
oai_identifier_str oai:bdigital.uexternado.edu.co:001/15302
network_acronym_str uexternad2
network_name_str Biblioteca Digital Universidad Externado de Colombia
repository_id_str
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
dc.title.translated.eng.fl_str_mv The Crime Fraud Exception: Evidentiary Privileges in the Fight Against Corruption in the United States
title La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
spellingShingle La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
attorney-client privilege,
attorney product doctrine,
reservation,
crime or fraud exception,
corruption,
evidence,
ethics
privilegio abogado-cliente,
doctrina del producto del abogado,
reserva,
excepción por delito o fraude,
corrupción,
evidencia,
ética
title_short La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
title_full La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
title_fullStr La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
title_full_unstemmed La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
title_sort La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
dc.creator.fl_str_mv Bartholomew, Christine P.
dc.contributor.author.spa.fl_str_mv Bartholomew, Christine P.
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv attorney-client privilege,
attorney product doctrine,
reservation,
crime or fraud exception,
corruption,
evidence,
ethics
topic attorney-client privilege,
attorney product doctrine,
reservation,
crime or fraud exception,
corruption,
evidence,
ethics
privilegio abogado-cliente,
doctrina del producto del abogado,
reserva,
excepción por delito o fraude,
corrupción,
evidencia,
ética
dc.subject.spa.fl_str_mv privilegio abogado-cliente,
doctrina del producto del abogado,
reserva,
excepción por delito o fraude,
corrupción,
evidencia,
ética
description El artículo se centra en el estudio de la figura del crime fraud exception o “excepción por delito o fraude”, creada en los Estados Unidos, que tiene como fin ser una herramienta para combatir la corrupción, mediante la eliminación, en ciertos casos, de la reserva de la doctrina de producto del abogado o del propio privilegio abogado-cliente. En primer lugar, el artículo esboza los elementos sobre los que puede recaer la excepción, para luego determinar su naturaleza y alcance. Luego, determina sus aspectos procedimentales, en pro de su invocación y, finalmente, analiza su impacto previo y retos futuros en cuanto a su aplicación frente a la corrupción financiera y política. Concluye señalando que la excepción por delito o fraude es una herramienta poderosa en la lucha contra la corrupción, siempre y cuando se facilite su activación por parte de los abogados.
publishDate 2023
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv 2023-06-09T11:20:25Z
2024-06-07T06:47:28Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv 2023-06-09T11:20:25Z
2024-06-07T06:47:28Z
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv 2023-06-09
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv Artículo de revista
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dc.type.coarversion.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv Text
dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.local.eng.fl_str_mv Journal article
dc.type.redcol.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREF
dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv 10.18601/01210483.v44n117.06
dc.identifier.eissn.none.fl_str_mv 2346-2108
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv 0121-0483
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/handle/001/15302
dc.identifier.url.none.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.18601/01210483.v44n117.06
identifier_str_mv 10.18601/01210483.v44n117.06
2346-2108
0121-0483
url https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/handle/001/15302
https://doi.org/10.18601/01210483.v44n117.06
dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv spa
language spa
dc.relation.bitstream.none.fl_str_mv https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/8747/15055
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/8747/15056
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/8747/15057
dc.relation.citationedition.spa.fl_str_mv Núm. 117 , Año 2023 : Julio-Diciembre
dc.relation.citationendpage.none.fl_str_mv 178
dc.relation.citationissue.spa.fl_str_mv 117
dc.relation.citationstartpage.none.fl_str_mv 149
dc.relation.citationvolume.spa.fl_str_mv 44
dc.relation.ispartofjournal.spa.fl_str_mv Derecho Penal y Criminología
dc.relation.references.spa.fl_str_mv Advisory Committee’s Notes to 1970 Amendment to Fed. R. Civ.
Auburn K. Daily y S. Britta Thornquist, Has the Exception Outgrown the Privi¬lege? Exploring the Application of the Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney- Client Privilege, 16 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 583, 585–86 (2003).
Christopher Paul Galanek, The Impact of the Zolin Decision on the Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege, 24 Ga. L. Rev. 1115, 1122 (1990).
Cyrus Mehri, Richard Condit, and Cleveland Lawrence iii, Why Giuliani and Trump Can’t Hide Behind Attorney-Client Privilege, Politico (Oct. 3, 2019).
Dan Mangan y Chris Eudaily, Trump’s Ex-Lawyer Michael Cohen Cooperating with New York Prosecutors in Probe of Whether Trump Organization Falsified Records, CNBC (Sep. 11, 2019).
David J. Fried, Too High A Price for Truth: The Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege for Contemplated Crimes and Frauds, 64 N.C. L. Rev. 443, 444 (1986).
Dennis J. Ventry, Jr., Stitches for Snitches: Lawyers As Whistleblowers, 50 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1455, 1552 n. 15 and Appendix (2017).
Edward J. Imwinkelried, The Need to Amend Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b): The Threat to the Future of the Federal Rules of Evidence, 30 Vill. L. Rev. 1465, 1466 (1985).
Elaina Plott, Rudy Giuliani l ‘You should be happy for your country that I unco¬vered this’, The Atlantic (Sept. 26, 2019), available at: https://www.theatlantic. Com/politics/archive/2019/09/giuliani-ukraine-trump-biden/598879.
Geoffrey C. Hazard, An Historical Perspective on the Attorney-Client Privilege, 66 Cal. Rev. 1061, 1062 (1978).
H. Lowell Brown, The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege in the Context of Corporate Counseling, 87 Ky. L.J. 1191, 1210 (1999).
Implementation of the Whistleblower Provisions of Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Release No. 34-64545, 7 C.F.R. §§ 240, 249 (2016).
Ladd, Privileges, 1965 law & soc. ord. 555, 577.
Roger C. Cramton et al., Legal and Ethical Duties of Lawyers after Sarbanes- Oxley, 49 Vill. L. Rev. 725, 784 (2004).
Tom McCarthy y Ben Jacobs, Michael Cohen, Trump’s Former Lawyer, Pleads Guilty in New York Court, The Guardian (Aug. 21, 2018).
Two Foreign-Born Men Who Helped Giuliani on Ukraine Arrested on Campaign- Finance Charges, The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 10, 2019).
Alexander v. U.S., 138 U.S. 353, 358, (1891).
Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Stern, 293 F.R.D. 420, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
Brennan Center for Justice v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 697 F.3d 184, 207 (2d Cir. 2012).
Case No. 18-MJ-3161 (SDNY April 27, 2018).
Clark v. U.S., 289 U.S. 1, 15 (1933).
Coleman v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 106 F.R.D. 201, 208 (D.D.C. 1985).
Diamond v. Stratton, 95 F.R.D. 503, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).
Drummond Co. v. Conrad & Scherer, llp, 885 F.3d 1324, 1337 (11th Cir. 2018).
Feld v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 991 F. Supp. 2d 242, 247 (D.D.C. 2013).
Granada Corp. v. Honorable First Court of Appeals, 844 S.W.2d 223, 227-28 (Tex. 1992).
Grossman v. Schwarz, 125 F.R.D. 376, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
Gutter v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 124 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1300-01 (S.D. Fla. 2000).
Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 676 F. Supp. 1332, 1357 (E.D. Va. 1987).
Harris Mgmt., Inc. v. Coulombe, 151, A.3d 7, 18-19 (Me. 2016).
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947).
Howell’s State Trials 1139 (1743).
In re Bairnco Corp. Sec. Litig., 148 F.R.D. 91, 100 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Schafer, 66 P.3d 1036, 1044 (Wash. 2003).
In re General Motors Corp., 153 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 1998).
In re Grand Jury Investigation (Schroeder), 842 F.2d 1223, 1227 (11th Cir. 1987).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 445 F.3d 266, 269 (3d Cir. 2006)
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 810 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2016).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 918 F.2d 374, 379 (3d Cir. 1990).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 1992).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, No. MC 17-2336 (bah), 2017 WL 4898143, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2017).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, No. MC 17-2336 (bah), 2017 WL 4898143, at *8 (D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2017).
In re Grand Jury Proceeding, 417 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2005).
In re G rand Jury P roceedings #5 Empaneled January 28, 2004, 4 01 F.3d 247, 253(4th Cir. 2005).
In re Grand Jury Proceedings #5, 401 F.3d 247, 251 (4th Cir. 2005).
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 33 F.3d at 348.
In re Grand Jury proceedings, 87 F.3d 377, 381 (9th Cir. 1996).
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Thursday Special Grand Jury Sept. Term, 33 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 1994).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Sept. 15, 1983, 731 F.2d 1032, 1039 (2d Cir. 1984).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir. 1997).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 731 F.2d 1032, 1041 (2d Cir. 1984).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 144 F.3d 653, 660 (10th Cir. 1998).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 419 F.3d 329, 335 (5th Cir. 2005).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 974 F.2d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 1992).
In re Grand Subpoena, 745 F.3d 681, 687 (3d Cir. 2014).
In re Int’l Sys. & Controls Corp. Sec. Litig., 693 F.2d 1235, 1242 (5th Cir. 1982).
In re John Doe Corp., 675 F.2d 482, 491 (2d Cir. 1982).
In re John Doe, Inc., 13 F.3 633, 637 (2d Cir. 1994).
In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1076 (4th Cir.1981).
In re Pub. Def. Serv., 831 A.2d at 902.
In re Sealed Case, 107 F.3d 46, 50 (D.C.Cir.1997).
In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
Intervenor v. United States (In re Grand Jury Subpoenas), 144 F.3d 653, 660 (10th Cir. 1998).
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10 (1996).
MC Asset Recovery, LLC v. Castex Energy, Inc., No. 4:07-CV-076-Y, 2012 WL 12919303, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 31, 2012).
Monon Corp. v. Stoughton Trailers, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 99, 104 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
Nat.-Immunogenics Corp. v. Newport Trial Grp., No. sacv1502034jvsjcgx, 2018 WL 6137597, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2018) on reconsideration in part, No. sacv152034jvsjcgx, 2019 WL 3110021 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2019).
Nobelpharma Ab v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 930 F. Supp. 1241, 1261 (N.D. Ill. 1996), aff’d, 141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
North Carolina Electric Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 110 F.R.D. 511, 517 (M.D.N.C. 1986).
Ott v. State, 222 S.W. 261, 263 (Tx. 1920).
Parrott v. Wilson, 707 F.2d 1262, 1271-72 (11th Cir. 1983).
People v. Radojcic, 998 N.E. 1212, 1220-21 (Ill. 2013).
Pfeifer v. State Farm Ins. Co., 1997 WL 276085, *3 (E.D. La. 1997).
San Francisco Residence Club, Inc. v. Baswell-Guthrie, 897 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1215 (N.D. Ala. 2012).
Stirum v. Whalen, 811 F. Supp. 78, 82 (N.D.N.Y. 1993).
Sutton v. Stevens Painton Corp., 951 N.E.2d 91, 96 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Towne Place Condo. Ass’n v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 284 F. Supp. 3d 889, 895 (N.D. Ill. 2018).
Tremmel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 53 (1980).
U.S. Postal Serv. V. Phelps Dodge Ref. Corp., 852 F. Supp. 156, 164 (E.D.N.Y. 1994).
U.S. v. Ackert, 169 F.3d 136, 139 (2d Cir. 1999).
U.S. v. Buitrago-Dugand, 712 F. Supp. 1045, 1048 (D.P.R. 1989).
U.S. v. Loften, 507 F. Supp. 108, 112 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
United States v. Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, 1503-04 (9th Cir. 1996).
United States v. Doe, 429 F.3d 450, 454 (3d Cir.2005).
United States v. Gallego, No. 4:18-cr-01537, 2018 U.S. Dist. lexis 152055 ( D. Ariz. Sept. 6, 2018).
United States v. Moazzeni, 906 F. Supp. 2d 505, 517 (E.D. Va. 2012).
United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237 (1975).
United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 556 (1989).
Upjohn Co. v. U.S., 449 U.S. 383, 390 (1981).
Reglas federales de Procedimiento Civil.
dc.rights.spa.fl_str_mv Christine P. Bartholomew - 2023
dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.coar.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
rights_invalid_str_mv Christine P. Bartholomew - 2023
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv application/pdf
text/html
text/xml
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv Instituto de Ciencias Penales y Criminológicas
dc.source.spa.fl_str_mv https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/view/8747
institution Universidad Externado de Colombia
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/bitstreams/66fdf3d3-8ad6-420c-b63d-bf30ae018aa0/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv 0489e42ef9eb0b09e72fc4ff852393a8
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Universidad Externado de Colombia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv metabiblioteca@metabiblioteca.org
_version_ 1814100415803817984
spelling Bartholomew, Christine P.2023-06-09T11:20:25Z2024-06-07T06:47:28Z2023-06-09T11:20:25Z2024-06-07T06:47:28Z2023-06-09El artículo se centra en el estudio de la figura del crime fraud exception o “excepción por delito o fraude”, creada en los Estados Unidos, que tiene como fin ser una herramienta para combatir la corrupción, mediante la eliminación, en ciertos casos, de la reserva de la doctrina de producto del abogado o del propio privilegio abogado-cliente. En primer lugar, el artículo esboza los elementos sobre los que puede recaer la excepción, para luego determinar su naturaleza y alcance. Luego, determina sus aspectos procedimentales, en pro de su invocación y, finalmente, analiza su impacto previo y retos futuros en cuanto a su aplicación frente a la corrupción financiera y política. Concluye señalando que la excepción por delito o fraude es una herramienta poderosa en la lucha contra la corrupción, siempre y cuando se facilite su activación por parte de los abogados.The article focuses on the study of the “crime fraud exception” created in the United States, as a tool to combat corruption by eliminating, in certain cases, the reservation of the attorney product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege itself. First, the article outlines the elements on which the exception may fall and determines its nature and scope. Then, it explains its procedural aspects, in favor of its invocation and, finally, it analyzes its previous impact and future chal­lenges regarding its application in the face of financial and political corruption. It concludes by identifying that the crime or fraud exception is a powerful tool in the fight against corruption, as long as its activation by lawyers is facilitated.application/pdftext/htmltext/xml10.18601/01210483.v44n117.062346-21080121-0483https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/handle/001/15302https://doi.org/10.18601/01210483.v44n117.06spaInstituto de Ciencias Penales y Criminológicashttps://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/8747/15055https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/8747/15056https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/8747/15057Núm. 117 , Año 2023 : Julio-Diciembre17811714944Derecho Penal y CriminologíaAdvisory Committee’s Notes to 1970 Amendment to Fed. R. Civ.Auburn K. Daily y S. Britta Thornquist, Has the Exception Outgrown the Privi¬lege? Exploring the Application of the Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney- Client Privilege, 16 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 583, 585–86 (2003).Christopher Paul Galanek, The Impact of the Zolin Decision on the Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege, 24 Ga. L. Rev. 1115, 1122 (1990).Cyrus Mehri, Richard Condit, and Cleveland Lawrence iii, Why Giuliani and Trump Can’t Hide Behind Attorney-Client Privilege, Politico (Oct. 3, 2019).Dan Mangan y Chris Eudaily, Trump’s Ex-Lawyer Michael Cohen Cooperating with New York Prosecutors in Probe of Whether Trump Organization Falsified Records, CNBC (Sep. 11, 2019).David J. Fried, Too High A Price for Truth: The Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege for Contemplated Crimes and Frauds, 64 N.C. L. Rev. 443, 444 (1986).Dennis J. Ventry, Jr., Stitches for Snitches: Lawyers As Whistleblowers, 50 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1455, 1552 n. 15 and Appendix (2017).Edward J. Imwinkelried, The Need to Amend Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b): The Threat to the Future of the Federal Rules of Evidence, 30 Vill. L. Rev. 1465, 1466 (1985).Elaina Plott, Rudy Giuliani l ‘You should be happy for your country that I unco¬vered this’, The Atlantic (Sept. 26, 2019), available at: https://www.theatlantic. Com/politics/archive/2019/09/giuliani-ukraine-trump-biden/598879.Geoffrey C. Hazard, An Historical Perspective on the Attorney-Client Privilege, 66 Cal. Rev. 1061, 1062 (1978).H. Lowell Brown, The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege in the Context of Corporate Counseling, 87 Ky. L.J. 1191, 1210 (1999).Implementation of the Whistleblower Provisions of Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Release No. 34-64545, 7 C.F.R. §§ 240, 249 (2016).Ladd, Privileges, 1965 law & soc. ord. 555, 577.Roger C. Cramton et al., Legal and Ethical Duties of Lawyers after Sarbanes- Oxley, 49 Vill. L. Rev. 725, 784 (2004).Tom McCarthy y Ben Jacobs, Michael Cohen, Trump’s Former Lawyer, Pleads Guilty in New York Court, The Guardian (Aug. 21, 2018).Two Foreign-Born Men Who Helped Giuliani on Ukraine Arrested on Campaign- Finance Charges, The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 10, 2019).Alexander v. U.S., 138 U.S. 353, 358, (1891).Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Stern, 293 F.R.D. 420, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).Brennan Center for Justice v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 697 F.3d 184, 207 (2d Cir. 2012).Case No. 18-MJ-3161 (SDNY April 27, 2018).Clark v. U.S., 289 U.S. 1, 15 (1933).Coleman v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 106 F.R.D. 201, 208 (D.D.C. 1985).Diamond v. Stratton, 95 F.R.D. 503, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).Drummond Co. v. Conrad & Scherer, llp, 885 F.3d 1324, 1337 (11th Cir. 2018).Feld v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 991 F. Supp. 2d 242, 247 (D.D.C. 2013).Granada Corp. v. Honorable First Court of Appeals, 844 S.W.2d 223, 227-28 (Tex. 1992).Grossman v. Schwarz, 125 F.R.D. 376, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).Gutter v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 124 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1300-01 (S.D. Fla. 2000).Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 676 F. Supp. 1332, 1357 (E.D. Va. 1987).Harris Mgmt., Inc. v. Coulombe, 151, A.3d 7, 18-19 (Me. 2016).Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947).Howell’s State Trials 1139 (1743).In re Bairnco Corp. Sec. Litig., 148 F.R.D. 91, 100 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Schafer, 66 P.3d 1036, 1044 (Wash. 2003).In re General Motors Corp., 153 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 1998).In re Grand Jury Investigation (Schroeder), 842 F.2d 1223, 1227 (11th Cir. 1987).In re Grand Jury Investigation, 445 F.3d 266, 269 (3d Cir. 2006)In re Grand Jury Investigation, 810 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2016).In re Grand Jury Investigation, 918 F.2d 374, 379 (3d Cir. 1990).In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 1992).In re Grand Jury Investigation, No. MC 17-2336 (bah), 2017 WL 4898143, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2017).In re Grand Jury Investigation, No. MC 17-2336 (bah), 2017 WL 4898143, at *8 (D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2017).In re Grand Jury Proceeding, 417 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2005).In re G rand Jury P roceedings #5 Empaneled January 28, 2004, 4 01 F.3d 247, 253(4th Cir. 2005).In re Grand Jury Proceedings #5, 401 F.3d 247, 251 (4th Cir. 2005).In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 33 F.3d at 348.In re Grand Jury proceedings, 87 F.3d 377, 381 (9th Cir. 1996).In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Thursday Special Grand Jury Sept. Term, 33 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 1994).In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Sept. 15, 1983, 731 F.2d 1032, 1039 (2d Cir. 1984).In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir. 1997).In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 731 F.2d 1032, 1041 (2d Cir. 1984).In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 144 F.3d 653, 660 (10th Cir. 1998).In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 419 F.3d 329, 335 (5th Cir. 2005).In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 974 F.2d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 1992).In re Grand Subpoena, 745 F.3d 681, 687 (3d Cir. 2014).In re Int’l Sys. & Controls Corp. Sec. Litig., 693 F.2d 1235, 1242 (5th Cir. 1982).In re John Doe Corp., 675 F.2d 482, 491 (2d Cir. 1982).In re John Doe, Inc., 13 F.3 633, 637 (2d Cir. 1994).In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1076 (4th Cir.1981).In re Pub. Def. Serv., 831 A.2d at 902.In re Sealed Case, 107 F.3d 46, 50 (D.C.Cir.1997).In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985).Intervenor v. United States (In re Grand Jury Subpoenas), 144 F.3d 653, 660 (10th Cir. 1998).Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10 (1996).MC Asset Recovery, LLC v. Castex Energy, Inc., No. 4:07-CV-076-Y, 2012 WL 12919303, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 31, 2012).Monon Corp. v. Stoughton Trailers, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 99, 104 (N.D. Ill. 1996).Nat.-Immunogenics Corp. v. Newport Trial Grp., No. sacv1502034jvsjcgx, 2018 WL 6137597, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2018) on reconsideration in part, No. sacv152034jvsjcgx, 2019 WL 3110021 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2019).Nobelpharma Ab v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 930 F. Supp. 1241, 1261 (N.D. Ill. 1996), aff’d, 141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998).North Carolina Electric Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 110 F.R.D. 511, 517 (M.D.N.C. 1986).Ott v. State, 222 S.W. 261, 263 (Tx. 1920).Parrott v. Wilson, 707 F.2d 1262, 1271-72 (11th Cir. 1983).People v. Radojcic, 998 N.E. 1212, 1220-21 (Ill. 2013).Pfeifer v. State Farm Ins. Co., 1997 WL 276085, *3 (E.D. La. 1997).San Francisco Residence Club, Inc. v. Baswell-Guthrie, 897 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1215 (N.D. Ala. 2012).Stirum v. Whalen, 811 F. Supp. 78, 82 (N.D.N.Y. 1993).Sutton v. Stevens Painton Corp., 951 N.E.2d 91, 96 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).Towne Place Condo. Ass’n v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 284 F. Supp. 3d 889, 895 (N.D. Ill. 2018).Tremmel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 53 (1980).U.S. Postal Serv. V. Phelps Dodge Ref. Corp., 852 F. Supp. 156, 164 (E.D.N.Y. 1994).U.S. v. Ackert, 169 F.3d 136, 139 (2d Cir. 1999).U.S. v. Buitrago-Dugand, 712 F. Supp. 1045, 1048 (D.P.R. 1989).U.S. v. Loften, 507 F. Supp. 108, 112 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).United States v. Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, 1503-04 (9th Cir. 1996).United States v. Doe, 429 F.3d 450, 454 (3d Cir.2005).United States v. Gallego, No. 4:18-cr-01537, 2018 U.S. Dist. lexis 152055 ( D. Ariz. Sept. 6, 2018).United States v. Moazzeni, 906 F. Supp. 2d 505, 517 (E.D. Va. 2012).United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237 (1975).United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 556 (1989).Upjohn Co. v. U.S., 449 U.S. 383, 390 (1981).Reglas federales de Procedimiento Civil.Christine P. Bartholomew - 2023info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/view/8747attorney-client privilege,attorney product doctrine,reservation,crime or fraud exception,corruption,evidence,ethicsprivilegio abogado-cliente,doctrina del producto del abogado,reserva,excepción por delito o fraude,corrupción,evidencia,éticaLa excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados UnidosThe Crime Fraud Exception: Evidentiary Privileges in the Fight Against Corruption in the United StatesArtículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleJournal articlehttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREFinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPublicationOREORE.xmltext/xml2685https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/bitstreams/66fdf3d3-8ad6-420c-b63d-bf30ae018aa0/download0489e42ef9eb0b09e72fc4ff852393a8MD51001/15302oai:bdigital.uexternado.edu.co:001/153022024-06-07 01:47:28.797http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0Christine P. Bartholomew - 2023https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.coUniversidad Externado de Colombiametabiblioteca@metabiblioteca.org

Publicaciones similares