Epstein Secrets

from the investigator that he recovered the wallet from behind the defendant's home over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court held that the introduction of the wallet and the investigator's testimony was proper because "whenever defense counsel removes or alters evidence,

an attorney does not render everything he does for or with the client privileged." Gutter v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. , 1998 WL 2017926, *1 (S.D. Fl. May 18, 1998) EFTA00211785 (citations omitted). If an attorney (or his agent) was doing something other than rendering legal advice, neither the

from the investigator that he recovered the wallet from behind the defendant's home over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court held that the introduction of the wallet and the investigator's testimony was proper because "whenever defense counsel removes or alters evidence,

s an attorney does not render everything he does for or with the client privileged." Gutter I E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. , 1998 WL 2017926, *1 (S.D. Fl. May 18, 1998) EFTA00223001 (citations omitted). If an attorney (or his agent) was doing something other than rendering legal advice, neither the

rom the investigator that he recovered the wallet from behind the defendant's home over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court held that the introduction of the wallet and the investigator's testimony was proper because "whenever defense counsel removes or alters evidence, t

nited States in evaluating that claim, but Epstein has objected to the production of those documents. -17- EFTA00179116 Co., 1998 WL 2017926, *1 (S.D. Fl. May 18, 1998) (citations omitted). If an attorney (or his agent) was doing something other than rendering legal advice, neither the attorney-client