Journal der Wirtschaftsstrafrechtlichen Vereinigung e.V.

(Deutsch) Das Anwaltsprivileg im englischen und US-amerikanischen Recht (Teil II)

Dr. Daniel M. Gajek, WiJ 2019, 73 - 84

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.


(Deutsch)

[1] Die Bearbeiter danken Karolin Borcherding, Studentin an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, für die Unterstützung bei der Erstellung dieses Teils.

[2] 329 U.S. 495 (1947).

[3] Es bestehen Unterschiede zwischen federal courts und state courts im Umgang mit der Doktrin. Während die nationalen Gerichte sowohl an die Fed. R. Civ. P. als auch an nationale Rechtsprechung gebunden sind, orientieren sich die state courts bei der Anwendung der Hickman-Richtlinien mehr am case law des jeweiligen Staates, sodass im Einzelfall Abweichungen von Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) möglich sind. Größtenteils folgen die Gerichte allerdings einer einheitlichen Linie.

[4] In re Special September 1978 Grand Jury (II), 640 F.2d 49, 61 (C.A.Ill., 1980).

[5] Die Kodifizierungen beziehen sich nur auf die pretrial discovery; beide schützen explizit Materialien, die von Repräsentanten des Anwalts erstellt wurden; die Strafnorm beschränkt die Offenlegung von Gedankeneindrücken des Anwalts unabhängig von einem good cause showing und die Zivilnorm umfasst wörtlich nur materielle Gegenstände im Gegensatz zu mündlichen Aussagen.

[6] Coastal Corp. v. Duncan, 86 F.R.D. 514, 522 (1980); United States v. AT&T, 86 F.R.D. 603, 627 (1979); Feldman v. Pioneer Petroleum, Inc., 87 F.R.D. 86, 88 (W.D. Okla. 1980).

[7] Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3): “documents and other tangible things”.

[8] Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947).

[9] Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(B).

[10] Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 401-02 (1980).

[11] FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals 778 F.3d 142 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

[12] 54 F.R.D. 367, 372 (N.D. Ill. 1972).

[13] Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).

[14] Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) Advisory Committee Note .

[15] Goosman v. A. Duie Pyle Inc., 320 F.2d 45, 52 (4th Cir. 1963); Galambus v. Consolidated Freightways, 64 F.R.D. 468, 472 (N.D. Ind. 1974).

[16] GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 85 F.R.D. 46, 50-51 (S.D.N.Y. 1979); ebd.: “documents (…) prepared solely for purposes other than trial preparation are not protected”.

[17] Z.B. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947); Sterling Drug Inc. v. Harris, 488 F. Supp. 1019, 1026 (S.D.N.Y. 1980); United States v. Bonnell, 483 F. Supp. 1070, 1078 (D. Minn. 1979); Sylgab Steel & Wire Corp. v. Imoco-Gateway Corp., 62 F.R.D. 454, 457 (N.D. Ill. 1974).

[18] 54 F.R.D. 367 (N.D. Ill. 1972).

[19] Siehe auch Judge Will, ebd.: „no document authored prior to the consultation of an attorney may be deemed to have been prepared in anticipation of litigation (…)“; so auch Judge Layton in Spaulding v. Denton, 68 F.R.D. 342 (D. Del. 1975).

[20] Almaguer v. Chicago Rock Island & Pac. R.R., 55 F.R.D. 147, 149 (D. Neb. 1972); American Optical Corp. v. Medtronic, 56 F.R.D. 426, 430-31 (D. Mass. 1972); Stix Products, Inc. v. United Merchants & Manufacturing, Inc., 47 F.R.D. 334, 337 (S.D.N.Y.1969).

[21] Cohn, The Work Product Doctrine: Protection, Not Privilege, Georgetown University Law Journal, 1984.

[22] Anderson, Cadieux, Hays E., Hingerty, Work Product Doctrine, 68 Cornell L. Rev. 760 (1983) p. 847.

[23] United States v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 542 F.2d 655, 660 (6th Cir. 1976); Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage (I), 487 F.2d 480, 483-84 (4th Cir. 1973).

[24] U.a. Republic Gear Co. v. Borg-Warner Corp., 381 F.2d 551, 557 (2nd Cir. 1967); Midland Inv. Co. v. Van Alstyne, Noel & Co., 59 F.R.D. 134, 138 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).

[25] Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A).

[26] Ebd.

[27] State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2001) Cal.App.4th 1080, 1091; Hercules Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 434 F. Supp. 136, 156 (D. Del. 1977): “work product immunity may be invoked only by an attorney”.

[28] Tucker Ellis LLP v. Superior Court (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1233.

[29] In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 807 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

[30] SEC v. National Student Marketing Corp., 18 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1302, 1304 (D.D.C. 1974); in re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 807 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

[31] Fed. R. Civ. Prod. 26(b)(4), Notes of Advisory Committee, 1970 Amendment.

[32] Fed. R. Civ. Prod. 26(b)(4)(D).

[33] Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).

[34] Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).

[35] Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 401-02 (1980).

[36] In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Duffy), 473 F.2d 840, 848 (8th Cir. 1973); In re Grand Jury Investigation (Sturgis), 412 F. Supp. 943, 949 (E.D. Pa. 1976).

[37] Xerox v. IBM, 64 F.R.D. 367, 378 (S.D.N.Y. 1974); Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken Inc., 397 F. Supp. 1146, 1200 (D.S.C. 1975); Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 385 (1981).

[38] 329 U.S. 495, 509-10 (1947).

[39] 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947).

[40] Brennan v. Engineered Prods., 506 F.2d 299, 303 (8th Cir. 1974).

[41] Cornell L. Rev. Vol. 760, 1983, p. 801.

[42] Xerox v. IBM, 64 F.R.D. 367, 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1974).

[43] Arney v. George A. Hormel & Co., 53 F.R.D. 179, 181 (D. Minn., 1971).

[44] Vgl. Rackers v. Siegfried, 54 F.R.D. 24, 26 (W.D. Mo. 1971).

[45] Ebd.

[46] In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 809 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

[47] In re Sealed Case 676 F.2d 793, 808-09 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Hercules, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 434 F. Supp 136, 156 (D. Del. 1977).

[48] Hercules, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 434 F. Supp 136, 156 (D. Del. 1977); Donovan v. Fitzsimmons, 90 F.R.D. 583, 587 (N. D. Ill. 1981).

[49] In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 818, 219 U.S.App.D.C. 195, 220 (C.A.D.C., 1982).

[50] United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 (1975).

[51]  Fed. R. Evid. 612.

[52] United States v. Reserve Mining Co., 412 F. Supp. 705, 710 (D. Minn. 1976).

[53] In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 822-23 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

[54] Ebd., 824.

[55] Ebd.; In re Special September 1978 Grand Jury, 640 F.2d 49 (7th Cir. 1980).

[56] In diesem Beitrag nicht näher behandelt werden das Joint Privilege, Common Interest Privilege und Without Prejudice Privilege. Das Joint Privilege entsteht, wenn zwei oder mehr Parteien gemeinsam denselben Anwalt mandatieren oder auch ohne gemeinsam mandatierten Anwalt ein gemeinsames Interesse am Inhalt einer geschützten Kommunikation haben. Das Common Interest Privilege greift, wenn eine Partei einer anderen Partei ein geschütztes Dokument zeigt und man ein gemeinsames Interesse am Inhalt des Dokuments hat oder ein gemeinsames Interesse in einem Rechtsstreit hat, in dessen Kontext das Dokument erstellt wurde. Das Without Prejudice Privilege schützt Kommunikation zwischen Parteien eines Rechtsstreits vor der Vorlage vor Gericht, wenn die Kommunikation auf einen Vergleich zielt.

[57] Lord Hoffmann in R v Special Commissioners of Income Tax Ex p. Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd [2002] UKHL 21 Rn. 7, bestätigt durch Lord Scott in Three Rivers Disctrict Council and Others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 6) [2004] UKHL 48.

[58] B and Others v Auckland District Law Society and Another [2003] UKPC 38, bestätigt durch Lord Scott in Three Rivers Disctrict Council and Others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 6) [2004] UKHL 48 Rn. 25.

[59] Three Rivers District Council & Others v Governor & Company of the Bank of England (No. 6) [2004] UKHL 48.

[60] Vgl. die Darstellung von Lord Neuberger, Präsident des englischen Supreme Court, Vortrag v. 9.3.2016, Rn. 5 ff., abrufbar unter www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-160309.pdf.

[61] R (on the application of Prudential plc and another) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and another [2013] UKSC 1.

[62] R (on the application of Prudential plc and another) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and another [2013] UKSC 1.

[63] Walter Lilly and Company Limited v Mackay and another [2012] EWHC 649 (TCC).

[64] Akzo Nobel Chemicals Limited and Another v European Commission [2010] C-550/07 P.

[65] Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing v Rennicks (UK) Ltd (No. 1) [1991] F.S.R. 97, 98.

[66] AM&S Europe Limited v Commission of the European Communities [1982] 155/79.

[67] Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 5) [2003] EWCA Civ 474.

[68] Re Highgrade Traders Limited, Re [1984] B.C.L.C. 151.

[69] In der ersten Instanz ist der High Court für die Entscheidung von Fällen mit besonderer Bedeutung oder besonders hohem Streitwert zuständig. Darüber hinaus erfüllt er eine Aufsichtsfunktion gegenüber den im Rang niedrigeren Courts und vielen Tribunals (Schiedsgerichten). Der High Court ist in drei Abteilungen unterteilt, die Queen’s Bench Division (Kammer für Zivilsachen), die Chancery Division (Kammer für Wirtschaftssachen) und die Family Division (Kammer für Familienrecht).

[70] Three Rivers District Council & Others v Governor & Company oft he Bank of England (No. 5) [2003] EWCA Civ 474.

[71] Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corp Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2006.

[72] Ofulue v Bossert [2009] UKHL 16. Vgl. zum Without Prejudice Privilege Fußnote 55.

[73] Balabel v Air India [1988] Ch. 317.

[74] Three Rivers District Council & Others v Governor & Company of the Bank of England (No. 6) [2004] UKHL 48, Lord Scott Rn. 38.

[75] Three Rivers District Council & Others v Governor & Company of the Bank of England (No. 6) [2004] UKHL 48, Lord Roger Rn. 60. „Either expressly or impliedly the [client] was asking [the lawyers] to put on legal spectacles when reading, considering and commenting on the drafts. (…)

[76] Three Rivers District Council & Others v Governor & Company of the Bank of England (No. 6) [2004] UKHL 48, Lord Carswell Rn. 111.

[77] The Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd. [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB) Rn 53.

[78]Three Rivers District Council & Others v Governor & Company of the Bank of England (No. 6) [2004] UKHL 48, Lord Carswell Rn. 102.

[79] Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Baker (No. 2) [1998] Ch 356, vgl. 362 – 71.

[80] Waugh v British Railways Board [1980] AC 521.

[81] Waugh v British Railways Board [1980] AC 521.

[82] Price Waterhouse v BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A. [1992] BCLC 583.

[83] Parry Jones v Law Society [1969] 1 Ch 1, 9, Ch.

[84] Re L (A Minor) (Police Investigation: Privilege) [1997] AC 16.

[85] Re Highgrade Traders Limited [1984] BCLC 151; Westminster International BV v Dornoch BV [2009] EWCA Civ 1323.

[86] United States v Philip Morris Inc [2004] EWCA Civ 330.

[87] United States vs Philip Morris Inc [2004] EWCA Civ 330.

[88] Re RBS (Rights Issue Litigation) [2016] EWHC 3161 (Ch).

[89] Serious Fraud Office (SFO) v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd. [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB). Vgl. zu beiden Entscheidungen Potocic/Frank, CCZ 2017, 199.

[90] Serious Fraud Office (SFO) v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd. [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB) Rn. 51 und 54.

[91] Serious Fraud Office (SFO) v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd. [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB) Rn. 61.

[92] The Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd. [2018] EWCA Civ 2006.

[93] The Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd. [2018] EWCA Civ 2006.

[94] Digicel Ltd. v Cable & Wireless plc [2009] EWHC 1437 (Ch).

[95] Great Atlantic Insurance Co. v Home Insurance Co. [1981] 1 W.L.R. 529 (CA).

[96] ACD (Landscape Architects) Ltd v Overall [2011] EWHC 3362 (TCC).

[97] Lucas v Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1102.

[98] Digicel Ltd. v Cable & Wireless plc [2009] EWHC 1437 (Ch).

[99] Farm Assist Ltd (In Liquidation) v Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs [2008] EWHC 3079 (TCC).

[100] Commodities Research Unit International (Holdings) Ltd v King and Wood Mallesons LLP [2016] EWHC 63 (QB).

[101] Commodities Research Unit International (Holdings) Ltd v King and Wood Mallesons LLP [2016] EWHC 63 (QB); ACD (Landscape Architects) Ltd v Overall [2011] EWHC 3362 (TCC).

[102] Walsh Automation (Europe Ltd) v Bridgeman [2002] EWHC 1344 (QB).

[103] Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No. 8) [1991] 1 W.L.R. 73.

[104] Re RBS (Rights Issue Litigation) [2016] EWHC 3161 (Ch) Rn. 170ff.