litigation.' United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975). The work-product doctrine applies in civil and criminal litigation. Id. at 236. In Hickman v. Taylor, the Supreme Court described the policy behind the doctrine protecting the opinion work-product of lawyers. The Court explained that a lawyer is bou

rials prepared by an attorney `acting for his client in anticipation of litigation,"' United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237-38 (1975), quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 508 (1947), which applies in both civil and criminal litigation: Although the work-product doctrine most frequently is asserted as a

So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. 1970)(stating that the rules of discovery should be afforded broad and liberal treatment to effectuate their purpose), citing, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 507 (1947). 14. Next, the right to go to court to resolve disputes is a fundamental right. D.R. Lakes, Inc. v. Brandsmart U.S

So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. 1970)(stating that the rules of discovery should be afforded broad and liberal treatment to effectuate their purpose), citing, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 507 (1947). 21. Next, the right to go to court to resolve disputes is a fundamental right. D.R. Lakes. Inc. v. Brandsmart U.S

Court is governed by the basic mantra that the work-product doctrine is not absolute. Even the seminal case establishing the work-product doctrine, Hickman v. Taylor, recognized the doctrine's limits: We do not mean to say that all written materials obtained or prepared by an adversary's counsel with an eye tow

that "it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel." Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510 (1947). The privilege is codified at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3): Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents an

oenas violate the work-product doctrine, as well as Mr. Epstein's Fifth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In Hickman v. Taylor,. 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947), the Supreme Court recognized the modem work- product doctrine, holding that: (flu performing his various duties, how

that "it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel." Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510 (1947). The privilege is codified at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3): Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents an

oenas violate the work-product doctrine, as well as Mr. Epstein's Fifth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947), the Supreme Court recognized the modern work- product doctrine, holding that: [lin performing his various duties, how

ain hidden in an attorney's file and where production of those facts is essential to that preparation of one's case, discovery may properly be had." Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947). Furthermore, the "work product rule protects work done by an attorney in anticipation of, or during, litigation," In re

that "it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel." Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510 (1947). The privilege is codified at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3): Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents an

"it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain r 161 degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel." Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510, 67 S. Ct. 385, 91 L. Ed. 451 (1947). The privilege is codified at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3): Ordinarily, a part