SANDRA T.E., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SOUTH BERWYN SCHOOL DISTRICT 100, Defendant-Appellant, and SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Appellant., 600 F.3d 612

Summary

The law firm asserted that the information it produced was protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. The court agreed. The district court's assumption that when an attorney performed investigative work, he was not acting as an attorney for purposes of the attorney-client privilege, raised an issue of law subject to de novo review. The school district's statements reassuring the public of a desire to discover the truth persuaded the district court that the firm was hired for solely investigative purposes; it apparently ignored the firm's engagement letter. It was also clear that the investigation of the circumstances surrounding the abuse was an integral part of the legal services for which the firm was hired and a prerequisite to providing legal advice to the district. The work-product doctrine under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 also protected the materials from disclosure. The fact that the firm was not defendants' litigation counsel was not dispositive because ...