On April 6, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that it was improper for a trial court to order a party to disclose to opposing counsel—on an “attorneys’ eyes only” basis—documents arguably protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, see CLL Academy v. Academy House Council, No. 446 EDA 2019, 2020 PA Super 89 (April 6, 2020).

The parties in CLL appear to have had a relatively conventional dispute about whether certain AHC documents were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. But then, at CLL’s request, the trial court took an unconventional step. The trial court ordered AHC to disclose the documents in dispute, unredacted, to the court and to CLL counsel on an “attorneys’ eyes only” basis, so that the court could then entertain argument on the documents based on such disclosure. AHC appealed the order that called for the attorneys’ eyes only disclosure.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]