- 16 -
provided by the attorney, the attorney’s fiduciary duties to his
client do not necessitate the conclusion that the client has a
property right or ownership interest in the attorney’s work
product. Corrigan v. Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly, Davis &
Dicus, supra at 98. While the opinions of courts in other
jurisdictions are persuasive and helpful in our analysis, we must
ultimately determine whether, and to what extent, an attorney or
his client owns the client’s case file under Oklahoma State law.
The Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct generally imply
that clients have ownership rights in their case files under
Oklahoma law. Rule 1.6 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional
Conduct, which codify general principles regarding an attorney’s
ethical duties and fiduciary responsibilities to his client,
provides:
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating
to representation of a client unless the client
consents after consultation, except for disclosures
that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the
representation * * *
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, ch. 1, app. 3-A, R. 1.6(a) (West 2001).
Petitioners assert that rule 1.6, Oklahoma Rules of
Professional Conduct, is irrelevant because petitioner testified
without contradiction that McVeigh waived the attorney-client
privilege and the protection of the work product privilege.
Petitioner did not testify about any particulars regarding
McVeigh’s alleged waiver of the attorney-client privilege or
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008