Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

1. Attorney-Client

State v. Anthony E. Henderson, 2013AP2515, District 1, 10/7/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity If the trial court erred in excluding a witness’s attorney from testifying to information that would have impeached the witness, that error was harmless. Henderson was charged with sexually assaulting J.C. and R.S. Before trial, the attorney representing J.C. in… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Antonio D. Williams, 2013AP814; 6/3/14; District 1; (not recommended for publication); case activity This appeal raises a host of issues but the most interesting concern the trial court’s decisions to: (1) prohibit defense counsel from cross-examining the State’s cooperating witnesses, all of whom were testifying in the hopes of receiving reduced sentences for… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Demetrius M. Boyd, 2011 WI App 25; for Boyd: Rebecca Robin Lawnicki; case activity; Boyd BiC; State Resp.; Reply Request for New Counsel An indigent defendant doesn’t have the right to counsel of choice, but does have the right to counsel with whom he or she can communicate effectively. When an indigent defendant… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Sampson v. Sampson, 2004 WI 57, reversing 2003 WI App 141, 265 Wis. 2d 803, 667 N.W.2d 831 Issue: “¶2 The question before this court is whether a lawyer’s voluntary production of documents in response to opposing counsel’s discovery request constitutes a waiver of the attorney-client privilege under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 905.11 when the lawyer does not… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jeffrey J. Meeks, 2003 WI 104, overruling State v. Jeffrey J. Meeks, For Meeks: Christopher T. Van Wagner Issue: Whether the trial court, in ruling on competency, improperly relied on its perceptions of the defendant’s attorney in a prior case, in stressing that that attorney hadn’t raised competency. Holding: ¶1     …  At issue… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification Issue/Holding: The attorney-client privilege shields statements from attorney to client, such as billing records only to the extent that disclosure would “reveal[] the substance of lawyer-client communications.” ¶40. The undisputed record here shows that the sought billing records “contain detailed descriptions of the nature of… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification Issue/Holding: A former officer and director of a corporation is not entitled to waive the corporation’s attorney-client privilege, even with regard to information generated during the person’s corporate tenure. Under the “entity rule,” the privilege belongs solely to the corporation, and only the corporation may… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification Issue/Holding: Although a mere allegation is insufficient, the burden for establishing a prima facie case of the attorney-client crime-fraud exception is low — reasonable cause (i.e., more than suspicion but less than preponderance-of-evidence) to believe that the attorney’s services were utilized in furtherance of the… Read More

{ 0 comments }