一个组织放弃律师-客户特权和/或律师工作产品保护,以获得联邦法院判决的宽大处理:这是怎么回事?

Journal of health law Pub Date : 2006-01-01
Nancy S Jones
{"title":"一个组织放弃律师-客户特权和/或律师工作产品保护,以获得联邦法院判决的宽大处理:这是怎么回事?","authors":"Nancy S Jones","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":80027,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"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?\",\"authors\":\"Nancy S Jones\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":80027,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of health law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of health law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

控制组织量刑的指导方针规定减少实体在自我报告、合作和承担责任方面的罪责得分。2004年,当美国量刑指南手册第8C2.5(g)节的应用说明12中增加了额外的语言,即“放弃律师-客户特权和工作产品保护不是减少罪责的先决条件. ... !”组织必须做些什么才能获得罪责评分的减少但是,在某些情况下,为了满足合作的要求,可能需要放弃律师-委托人保密特权和工作产品保护。”经过几个月的听证会和公众评论,美国量刑委员会改变了其关于量刑法院在评估一个组织的"合作"作为量刑因素时是否应考虑该组织放弃律师-委托人保密特权和/或放弃律师工作成果保护的立场,提议撤销2004年修正案中增加的措辞。虽然这一建议已经生效,但在联邦刑法的背景下,政府的三个部门将如何回应特权放弃问题还有待确定。本文向读者概述了在联邦犯罪判决时寻求合作信誉的组织使用特权放弃的发展,公司及其律师对豁免问题的反应,以及导致委员会改变立场的事件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信