An organization's waiver of the attorney-client privilege and/ or the attorney work product protection to obtain leniency in federal court sentencing: what is the brouhaha all about?

The guidelines controlling the sentencing of organizations provide for the reduction in an entity's culpability score for self-reporting, cooperation, and acceptance of responsibility. What an organization must do in order to receive the reduction in culpability score changed dramatically in 2004 when additional language was added to Application Note 12 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Section 8C2.5(g) stating that "waiver of the attorney-client privilege and of work product protections is not a prerequisite to a reduction. ... However, in some circumstances waiver of the attorney-client privilege and of work product protections may be required in order to satisfy the requirements of cooperation." Following months of hearings and public comment, the United States Sentencing Commission reversed its position on whether a sentencing court should consider an organization's waiver of the attorney-client privilege and/or of the attorney work product protection in evaluating the organization's "cooperation" as a sentencing factor by proposing to retract the language added by the 2004 amendments. Although that proposal has become effective, it is yet to be determined what the response of the three branches of government will be on the issue of privilege waivers in the context of federal criminal law. This Article gives readers an overview of the development of the use of privilege waivers by organizations seeking credit for cooperation at the time of sentencing for federal crimes, the reaction of both corporations and their lawyers to the waiver issue, and the events leading up to the Commission's change of position.     

证据法的基本权利保障取向

证据法的理性主义传统,既要求通过理性证明的方式去查明事实真相,而非诉诸神明和暴力;又不以追求真相为最高目的,而是将其视为实现正义的手段.这种理性传统,决定了法治国家证据制度具有求真、求善的双重功能,并将公正奉为首要价值,从而奠定了基本权利保障的价值取向.我国证据法学研究和证据制度建设正在经历从义务本位向权利本位转型,权...     

For the health of the economy and patent system: rationale and scope of patent attorney privilege

Legal context: There exists, in some countries, a patent attorney privilege.This privilege allows an actual or potential holder of patentrights to withhold from a court communications that it has hadwith its patent attorney. The privilege is not recognized inall jurisdictions and there is variation in the extent of theprivilege in those countries where it does exist. Key points: This article explores the rationale for the privilege in orderto see if there is a sound basis upon which to found it. Througha consideration of the justifications for other legal privileges,the article finds that patent attorney privilege is a justifiableprotection for communications between clients and their patentattorneys. If there was a possibility that the communicationswould have to be revealed in court, this may impact the fulland frank nature of the communications. Such communicationsassist patent attorneys, as professionals with expertise ina specialized field, to provide clients with appropriate andeffective advice. That advice goes directly to the maintenanceand benefit of the patent system and the overall economy. Practical significance: As a result of the variation in the extent of the privilegearound the world, there are moves afoot to reform its operation.This article reveals strong public policy reasons for the recognitionof a patent attorney privilege. These grounds also reinforcethe need to ensure that privilege is not unduly limited in itsoperation in any jurisdiction.     

The defence of therapeutic privilege in Australia

Therapeutic privilege is a defence that excuses a medical practitioner or other health professional from complying with the requirements of full disclosure to a patient in circumstances where it is reasonably considered that such disclosure would be harmful to that patient's health or welfare. Although the concept originated in the United States, the defence has been applied in Australia, and was specifically endorsed as part of Australian law by the High Court in Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479. However, there has been negligible application of the defence since that endorsement. This article examines the doctrine of therapeutic privilege in the present Australian medico-legal environment. After an examination of the concept and its three constituetent elements, the article canvasses the limited instances of judicial approval of the defence prior to Rogers v Whitaker. The author then analyses, by reference to reported and unreported case law, why the defence has been so narrowly interpreted since, such that it has come to occupy an almost untenable position in Australia's medical jurisprudence.     

Waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege: implications for child custody litigation

The psychotherapist-patient privilege, rooted in both common and statutory law, is predicated upon the public policy goal of protecting the reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals seeking psychotherapy. The privilege is not absolute, however. State and federal courts are far from uniform in determining how and when the privilege should be waived, in whole or in part, through implication, inadvertence or the affirmative action of the parties. In the family law context, the law that has evolved around the exercise of this privilege is even more complex as the needs of children add another wrinkle to the goal of balancing the imperative of confidentiality with the need for useful information that may be provided.     

INTRAFAMILIAL COMMUNICATIONS

Although testimonial privileges undermine the general rule that all relevant evidence is admissible at trial, legislatures and courts have recognized certain privileges primarily to protect. In these cases, the courts and legislatures have balanced the competing interests of full disclosure, on one hand, and the preservation of valued relationship, on the other, and have found that the latter outweighs the former. The attorney-clint privilege, for example, exists to encourage truthful communications between attorney and client so that the client may obtain complete and accurate legal advice. Likewise, the marital privilege protects confidences between spouses to preserve the institution of marriage. The parent-child relationship, while certainly valuable to society, has not been afforded the same protection. This note argues that a parent-child privilege should exist. Basic constitutional principles, as well as comparative and social policy arguments, support the recognition of a parent-child privilege .     

博客的经济分析及对法律的影响

最近几年,博客的发展特别迅速,引起了人们的广泛注意.然而,博客产生了很多法律问题,比如传统记者的一些特权其是否享有?公众人物的隐私权制度、传统的行政许可法和合伙法,是否可以不加修正地适用于博客?都存在着很多的疑问.这些问题需要根据博客的经济特点来加以解决,而博客的经济特点与博客的技术特点又有着密切的联系.     

义务教育系统的特权与治理

义务教育系统的特权主要表现在：因教育行政管理不善引发的特权和教育决策缺乏民主和科学引发的特权.这两方面的特权表现形式和影响各不相同,但都直接影响了教育事业的长远发展.因此,应当采取法律手段、更新义务教育管理理念以及完善财政性教育投入的结构等对策加以治理.     

论民事诉讼简易程序的法理基础

民事诉讼简易程序作为迅速、廉价地解决民事简单案件的诉讼程序 ,得到越来越广泛的肯定和适用。设立民事诉讼简易程序 ,并非仅仅是为了提高法院的办案速度而采取的权宜之计 ,而是基于公民获得司法救济权、诉讼费用相当、司法资源的合理配置以及适时审判等诉讼法理的必然要求     

The United Kingdom Identity Cards Act 2006 Civil or Criminal?

After much controversy and debate, the United Kingdom Parliamentpassed the Identity Cards Act in March 2006. The new nationalidentity registration scheme established under the legislationwill be in operation in 2 years. Initially the scheme will notbe generally compulsory, though the intention is eventuallyto make it mandatory. The Act uses a mix of civil penalty andoffence provisions as part of its enforcement regime. This articleconsiders the approach of the legislation, particularly thepractical implications of authentication and verification ofidentity under the scheme and the potential impact on the effectivenessof the enforcement regime, having regard to the right againstself-incrimination under the Human Rights Act 1988 (UK) andArticle 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rightsand Fundamental Freedoms 1950, and the common law privilegeagainst self-incrimination.     

The journalist's privilege for nonconfidential information in states with shield laws

Most scholarship on journalistic privilege has been devoted to the issues affecting the right of journalists to refuse to reveal the identities of sources to whom confidentiality has been promised. The only United States Supreme Court case and almost all activity in lower courts and legislatures on the question are aimed at resolving the problem of whether or under what circumstances journalists should be compelled to identify confidential sources. Almost all of the increasing numbers of subpoenas issued to journalists, however, are aimed at journalists' nonconfidential information. This article analyzes state shield laws and their adjudication, concluding that the state of the law is divided on whether and to what extent journalists attempting to protect nonconfidential information should enjoy a constitutional, common‐law or statutory privilege.     

特免权规则：美国的制度与实践——兼论特免权规则的普遍性与差异性及中国语境下特免权规则的确立

英美证据法上设立特免权规则的目的在于保障特定的国家政策和具有普遍性的价值观念。特免权规则不仅存在于英关法系国家，而且也存在于大陆法系国家。但我国法律并没有明确地确立任何特免权规则，因此，我们应当审慎地对待特免权规则的移植问题。对于那些体现全人类共同价值的特免权规则，应当毫不犹豫地加以移植；对于尚无生活基础的特免权规则，暂时可不予考虑；对于相应制度具有类似功效且在实践中尚无显著问题的领域，也可以维持现状。     

The dangerous patient exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege: the Tarasoff duty and the Jaffee footnote

With the U.S. Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Jaffee v. Redmond, all U.S. jurisdictions have now adopted some form of evidentiary privilege for confidential statements by patients to psychotherapists for the purpose of seeking treatment. The majority of states, following the decision of the Supreme Court of California in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, have also adopted some form of duty by psychotherapists to breach confidentiality and warn potential victims against foreseeable violence by their patients. Largely unresolved is whether there should be a dangerous patient exception to the evidentiary privilege parallel to the Tarasoff exception to confidentiality. This Article argues that exception to the evidentiary privilege should be evaluated separately from the exception to confidentiality. Whether or not a Tarasoff duty to warn existed at an earlier time, exception to the evidentiary privilege should be made only where psychotherapists' testimony is necessary to prevent future harm to patients or identified potential victims. Applying this standard, the dangerous patient exception generally would not apply in criminal actions against patients, but would apply only in proceedings for the purpose of protecting patients or third parties, such as restraining order hearings or proceedings to hospitalize patients.     

英美诽谤法的特殊抗辩事由研究

英美诽谤法为实现保护言论自由和尊重个人名誉的平衡,设计了诸多精细的特殊抗辩事由,包括以真实性作为完全抗辩的依据;涉及公共利益的、基于事实的、真诚的公允评论;法律授予特殊场合的特权抗辩(绝对特权和受约制特权)及制定法规定的严格责任抗辩事由.这些抗辩事由使英美法诽谤法实现了法益平衡的目的.     

特免权规则:美国的制度与实践——兼论特免权规则的普遍性与差异性及中国语境下特免权规则的确立

英美证据法上设立特免权规则的目的在于保障特定的国家政策和具有普遍性的价值观念。特免权规则不仅存在于英美法系国家,而且也存在于大陆法系国家。但我国法律并没有明确地确立任何特免权规则,因此,我们应当审慎地对待特免权规则的移植问题。对于那些体现全人类共同价值的特免权规则,应当毫不犹豫地加以移植;对于尚无生活基础的特免权规则,暂时可不予考虑;对于相应制度具有类似功效且在实践中尚无显著问题的领域,也可以维持现状。     

“Not to Disclose Information Sources”: Journalistic Privilege Under Article 19 of ICCPR

International law took a significant step in recent years toward protection of journalists' sources and newsgathering processes. The international law journalistic privilege previously had been upheld by international tribunals, but it was not until 2011 that the United Nations Human Rights Committee adopted an interpretation of freedom of expression that included journalistic privilege. The presence of the privilege within freedom of expression, as recognized in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is important for several reasons. As part of freedom of expression, the privilege may not be overcome without a showing of necessity and proportionality, is not subject to a margin of appreciation, and is entitled to full realization by the 168 nations that have signed and ratified ICCPR.     

新时期反腐败对策探讨

腐败是社会公害,近几年来加大了打击力度,但仍屡禁不止。我们必须与时俱进不断地探索新的防腐败措施,消除特权从源头治腐;严肃法纪不徇私情加大腐败成本,警示世人;公共决策与行政行为公开化使腐败无机可乘;进一步完善监督机制,使监督收到实效。     

保险与抵押的机制衔接及其制度构架——以按揭住房保险为视角

物上代位制度的创设同时具有价值权说和特权说的法理逻辑内涵。抵押物保险金为代位物,实现了抵押与保险的机制衔接,内涵特有的价值目标和利益平衡性。抵押权人主动援用该机制设定抵押权风险的防范措施,具有法理正当性,但应使机制运行具有公平公正性;此机制中的保险强制应具体论证。保险和抵押机制有机衔接的关键是代位效力实现的规则设置,需解决代位物的特定化、担保价值的控制、担保效力的公示等实质性问题;法定扣押模式缺陷明显,抵押权人对代位物债权一定限度的控制规则更具合理性。物权立法必须对物上代位制度重新做出科学的制度构架。     

亲属权利的法律之痛——兼论“亲亲相隐”的现代转化

中国古代"亲亲相隐"是一种亲情伦理立法,现代东西方主要国家法律都确认由亲属身份而自然获得的某些例外特权,这是一种亲属权利立法。我国现行法律在否定"亲亲相隐"的亲情伦理立法以后,却没有确立亲属权利立法原则,这种传统与现代的断裂导致诸多尴尬和悲剧,"佘祥林案"中佘母的不幸遭遇即为典型。本文阐释古代"亲亲相隐"亲情伦理立法和现代亲属权利立法的各自特点,论述法律确认亲属权利的必然性和迫切性,探讨古老"亲亲相隐"对确立我国现代亲属权利制度的正面价值及其在现代人权理念之下的创新转化。     

MANDATED CUSTODY EVALUATIONS AND THE LIMITS OF JUDICIAL POWER

Kelly and Ramsey are clearly correct that a shift from a “how to” approach to custody evaluations to one that asks the more fundamental question “why” is long overdue. However, in addition to assessing the efficacy of custody evaluations (which Kelly and Ramsey propose), the legal system must also clarify the justification for imposing this extensive—and often expensive—intrusion into the privacy of parents. Three possible justifications for these intrusions are examined in this article: privilege, harm, and voluntariness. Is divorce a privilege, rather than a right, and can qualifications (including intrusive and expensive ones) be attached to requesting that privilege? Are custody evaluations instead justified as a means of avoiding harm to children? If a harm justification is asserted, exactly what harm do evaluations prevent, and how do they accomplish this harm avoidance? Finally, given the high value placed on parental cooperation by the family courts, is it simply too perilous for a parent to oppose a custody evaluation if one is suggested, either by the other parent or by the court? If so, are consents to custody evaluations truly voluntary?