This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies
By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn More
This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
search
cart
facebook twitter linkedin youtube
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
  • News
    • Newswire
  • Texas-Louisiana
  • Features
    • Projects
    • Companies
  • Top Lists
  • Current Issue
  • Blogs
  • Submit Your Photos
    • People
    • Projects
    • Events
  • Resources
    • Proposals & Bids
    • Industry Jobs
    • Subscribe
    • eNewsletter
    • Events
    • Advertise
    • Reprints and Plaques
    • Construction Cities
  • ENR Home
  • Other Regions
    • ENR Home
    • California
    • MidAtlantic
    • Midwest
    • Mountain States
    • New York
    • New England
    • Northwest
    • Southeast
    • Southwest
    • Texas & Louisiana
Home » Recordkeeping Procedures Can Help Protect Privileged Documents
Texas-Louisiana

Recordkeeping Procedures Can Help Protect Privileged Documents

March 1, 2010
R. Carson Fisk
Reprints
No Comments

All too often, contractors do not have quality recordkeeping procedures. This can cause numerous problems, especially if issues are encountered during construction. Contractors often elect to create files for a specific project, which may contain subfolders for items such as contracts, submittals and correspondence. Unless company policy clearly states which information is to be placed into the project file, it is unlikely that all relevant information will be included. For example, as a project progresses, a project manager may use a work computer. At the close of the project, files created on the work computer may never be transferred to the project file. Equally problematic is including items in the project file that should not be included or that should be specifically identified, particularly e-mail.

E-mail has its benefits, but the sheer volume of correspondence can be difficult to manage. When problems are encountered on a project, the amount of correspondence will likely increase. If the problems are significant, the contractor may involve its attorney, even if this means simply having the attorney provide advice solely to the contractor. At this point, quality recordkeeping procedures are critical.

While attorney-client communications are generally privileged, they can be waived. The inadvertent production of privileged documents can serve as a waiver of the privilege.

The rules of procedure that govern state and federal court actions contain provisions concerning the inadvertent production of privileged documents. Both provide that the inadvertent production of privileged documents may not necessarily operate as a waiver of the privilege. However, certain steps must be followed. Some of this is the responsibility of the attorney. But contractors can play a role in ensuring that the inadvertent production of documents does not waive any privilege.

Prior to the production of documents, attorneys generally conduct a privilege review of a contractor’s documents before providing them to the opposing party. With the introduction of e-mail, this task has become potentially extremely time consuming and expensive. Contractors increasingly want to perform the task internally. While this may save money, there is a significant risk that privileged documents may inadvertently be produced. The privilege may be reinstated and the document retrieved if the procedures set forth by the applicable rules are followed, but this does not address the fact that the opposing party may have observed privileged attorney-client information concerning legal strategies or the strengths or weaknesses of a contractor’s position.

R. Carson Fisk
R. Carson Fisk

The rule concerning the inadvertent production of privileged documents in state court actions is more flexible than its federal counterpart. Under state rule, if a party produces a privileged document in litigation without intending to waive the privilege, the privilege will not be waived if the party notifies the other party through discovery responses within 10 days. Once the other party has been notified, it must promptly return the document and any copies. This task would generally seem to fall on the attorney as it is the attorney who is responsible for managing discovery responses.

Under the federal rule, the production of privileged documents does not waive the privilege if the disclosure is inadvertent, the producing party took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure and the producing party promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error. These are newer rules and “reasonable steps” is open to interpretation.

It is entirely possible that a federal judge might not view having a client perform its own privilege review as a reasonable step to prevent disclosure. This is problematic if a contractor, in an effort to save costs, chooses not to have its attorney perform the privilege review and privileged documents are produced. Similarly, if a contractor’s recordkeeping procedures involve nothing more than dumping all documents pertaining to a project, including attorney-client communications, into one file, that could be construed as the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent disclosure.

Such issues are best addressed at the front end. A quality policy for recordkeeping procedures will help address these matters, in addition to likely having a positive impact on other aspects of the contractor’s business. Additionally, if any litigation is conducted in federal court, the inadvertent production should be less likely to operate as a waiver of a privilege.

R. Carson Fisk is an attorney at Ford Nassen & Baldwin P.C., Austin. The firm specializes in representating owners, general contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and sureties. He may be reached at 512-236-0009 or at rcfisk@fordnassen.com.

ENR Subscribe

Recent Articles by R. Carson Fisk

Protecting Public Project Bid Documents From Disclosure

Carefully Consider a Surety’s Indemnity Agreement

Related Articles

Protecting Public Project Bid Documents From Disclosure

The Business of Safety: Protect Your People and Your Firm

Post a comment to this article

Report Abusive Comment


Top Lists

Top Design FirmsTop Design Firms
Continued Growth Signals Positive Outlook For Region


Top ContractorsTop Contractors
Construction Continues To Boom Across The South


Top Specialty ContractorsTop Specialty Contractors
Abundant Jobs, Labor Shortages Define Regional Market



Industry Jobs

Videos
ENR Proposals and Bids


ENR twitterfeed
Tweets by ENR_TXLA

ENR

ENR December 16, 2019 cover

Dec 16, 2019

To attract a broader and more diverse workforce, companies and unions are courting the LGBTQ+ community and strengthening recruiting and retention efforts.

View More Create Account
  • Resources
    • advertise
    • contact us
    • about us
    • photo submissions
    • customer service
    • digital edition
    • Survey And Sample
  • Subscription Center
    • Subscribe
    • Website Registration
    • Privacy Policy
    • eNewsletters
    • FAQ
  • Multimedia
    • Videos
    • Slideshows
    • Photo Contest

Copyright ©2019. All Rights Reserved BNP Media.

Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing