Federalizing Privilege
- 3,010Usage
- 3Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Paper Description
The attorney-client privilege is in disarray. This Article traces why the doctrinal confusion is deeper and more widespread than most realize and proposes a radical reform - federalizing the privilege. Attorney-client privilege law varies greatly from state to state, federal circuit to federal circuit, and context to context, and its application is often unclear within particular jurisdictions. Most strikingly, the conflicts and ambiguities are not relegated to the margins. Issues lying at the heart of privilege doctrine - including the requirements of confidentiality, the parameters of the corporate privilege, and the scope of the crime-fraud exemption - are disputed or unresolved. Inadequate choice-of-law principles and the growth of national litigation and nonjudicial fora simply exacerbate the law's unpredictability. This Article demonstrates why such uncertainty is intolerable: an uncertain privilege inhibits access to the truth and creates enormous transaction costs while failing to enhance attorney-client communication and candor. Other reformers propose changes to address particular aspects of the existing uncertainty, but fail to offer holistic solutions. To resolve both lingering conflicts between jurisdictions and confusion within jurisdictions, we need a national, codified approach. Congress should federalize the law of privilege preemptively, creating uniform protection for client confidences that will apply in every proceeding in federal and state court, and in arbitration hearings, agency adjudications, and legislative proceedings. Federal privilege legislation that provides clear, unqualified, and generally applicable privilege protections will produce a level of certainty sufficient to reap the potential benefits of the privilege while ultimately lowering its transaction costs. This Article concludes that Congress has both the capacity and constitutional power to enact this needed reform.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know