Contact Click Here

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
1115 Harrison Street P.O. Box 906  •  Mount Vernon  •  Illinois 62864
The Sharp Law Firm, P.C
John T. Hundley

John T. Hundley

President of Sharp-Hundley, P.C., John T. Hundley has more than 35 years of legal experience and has published works in a variety of prestigious legal journals, which are cited by courts and relied upon by practitioners throughout the country. He devotes a majority of his practice to litigation and thus has significant experience in both state and federal courts in a variety of case types.

Practice Areas:

  • Litigation
  • Creditors’ Rights
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Transactional Matters
  • Administrative Proceedings
  • Equitable Remedies
  • Enforcement of Judgments

Education:

  • University of Illinois (Bachelor of Science, with honors, 1970)
  • DePaul University (Juris Doctorate, with honors, 1979)

Admitted to bar:

  • Supreme Court of Illinois, 1979
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 1979
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1980
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1981
  • U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois, 1983
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2001

Prior Affiliations:

  • Partner, 1986-1990, Associate, 1979-1986, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago
  • Partner, Hundley & Brusslan, Chicago, 1994-97
  • Owner, John T. Hundley Law Offices, Chicago, 1990-94, 1997-04

Reported Cases as Counsel:

  • Peoples Nat'l Bank v. Banterra Bank, 719 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2013);
  • Noyola v. Bd. of Ed. of City of Chicago, 179 Ill.2d 121, 688 N.E.2d 81, 227 Ill.Dec. 744, 123 Ed. L. Rep. 310 (1997);
  • In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 685 F.2d 810, 34 Fed.R.Serv.2d 513, 1982-2 Trade Cases & 64,843, 10 Fed.R.Evid.Serv. 1621 (3d Cir. 1983);
  • Grant v. Bd. of Ed. of City of Chicago, 282 Ill.App.3d 1011, 668 N.E.2d 1188, 218 Ill.Dec. 356, 112 Ed. L. Rep. 390 (1996);
  • Stewart v. EGNEP (Pty) Limited, 581 F.Supp. 788 (C.D. Ill. 1983);
  • Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Aaron Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 563 F.Supp. 1108 (N.D. Ill. 1983);
  • Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Aaron Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 563 F.Supp. 1118 (N.D. Ill. 1983);
  • In re Torres, 191 B.R. 735 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1996);
  • Ward Chrysler Center v. ADP Dealer Services, Inc., 2012 WL 3526757 (S.D. Ill. 2012);
  • Kissner v. Stephenson, 2006 WL 3314477 (S.D. Ill. 2006);
  • Tai Hospitality Inc. v. Khan, 2006 WL 44184 (S.D. Ill. 2006);
  • Crews v. City of Mt. Vernon, 2007 WL 2028190 (S.D. Ill. 2007);
  • Crews v. City of Mt. Vernon, 2007 WL 1521495 (S.D. Ill. 2007);
  • Crews v. City of Mt. Vernon, 2007 WL 1521498 (S.D. Ill. 2007);
  • Crews v. City of Mt. Vernon, 2008 WL 2224898, 184 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2373, 155 Lab.Cas. ¶ 11,037, 156 Lab.Cas. ¶ 11,070 (S.D. Ill. 2008);
  • Crews v. City of Mt. Vernon, 567 F.3d 860, 186 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2609 (7th Cir. 2009);
  • J. Wilderman Autoplex Corp. v. Norton, 2009 WL 1230016 (S.D. Ill. 2009);
  • Finch v. Finch, 2009 WL 310776 (S.D. Ill. 2009);
  • Eggmann v. Myers, 2009 WL 1098677 (S.D. Ill. 2009);
  • Eggmann v. Myers, 2009 WL 3762975, aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 2009 WL 3584133 (S.D. Ill. 2009);
  • In re EDG Holdings, Inc., 438 B.R. 154 (Bankr. S.D. Ill. 2010);
  • In re South Creek Development, LLC, 2010 WL 4683607 (C.D. Ill. 2010);
  • J. Wilderman Autoplex Corp. v. Norton, 2011 WL 52600 (S.D. Ill. 2011);
  • Wabash County v. Ill. Municipal Retirement Fund, 408 Ill.App.3d 924, 946 N.E.2d 907 (2011).

Author:

  • Respondents in Discovery: A Beneficent Statute With Traps for The Unwary, 36 S. Ill. Univ. L.J. 335 (2012);
  • Waiver of Evidentiary Privilege by Inadvertent Disclosure – State Law, 51 A.L.R. 5th 603 (1997);
  • Waiver of Evidentiary Privilege by Inadvertent Disclosure – Federal Law, 159 A.L.R. Fed. 153 (2000);
  • Business Expansion Through Asset Acquisition: Some Problems Posed By Product Liability Doctrines, 77 Ill. B.J. 492 (1989);
  • White Knights, Pre-Nuptial Confidences, and the Morning After: The Effect of Transaction-Related Disclosures on the Attorney-Client and Related Privileges, 5 DePaul Bus. L.J. 59 (1992-93);
  • "Inadvertent Waiver” of Evidentiary Privileges: Can Reformulating the Question Lead to More Sensible Decisions?, 19 S. Ill. Univ. L.J. 263 (1995);
  • Long Arms and Foreign Pockets: Can Multinational Financial Organizations Be Used To Subject Alien Defendants to the Enforcement of Illinois Judgments?, Chi. Bar Ass’n Record 24 (Sept. 1990);
  • Assignments of Wages in Illinois: Pitfalls for Employer Businesses, 14 DePaul Bus. L.J. 21 (2001);
  • Debt Collection in Illinois: Part 1 – From Start to Filing (Nat’l Bus. Inst. 2004);
  • Study Guide for Business Law (The American School 1998);
  • Court Says Broker May Simply Rely On Face of Attachment Order, 54 Commercial, Banking & Bankruptcy Law No. 1 (Ill. State Bar Ass’n Aug. 2009);
  • Legislature Changes Laws on Enforcement of Judgments, Sharp Thinking No. 1 (Nov. 2007);
  • Income Withholding Act Poses Employer Threat, Possible Challenge to Punitive Damages Doctrine, Sharp Thinking No. 3 (Jan. 2008);
  • ‘Know Thy Enemy and Know Thyself’: Misnaming and Mischaracterizing Parties Can Be Fatal in Litigation, Sharp Thinking No. 8 (May 2008);
  • Success at Foreclosure Sale Creates No Rights in Successful Bidder, Sharp Thinking No. 9 (June 2008);
  • Decision Clarifies Questions on Use Of Citations in Enforcing Judgments, Sharp Thinking No. 13 (Oct. 2008);
  • ‘Morning After’ Case Clarifies Rules on Right to Sue in Illinois, Sharp Thinking No. 15 (Dec. 2008);
  • Court Says Broker May Simply Rely on the Face of Attachment Order, Sharp Thinking No. 18 (Mar. 2009);
  • Fraud Is Not Required for Claim Under Illinois “Consumer Fraud Act”, Sharp Thinking No. 19 (Apr. 2009);
  • Statute of Limitations for Contracts Limited, Sharp Thinking No. 21 (June 2009);
  • Host of Judicial Developments Confronts Real Estate Industry, Sharp Thinking No. 24 (Sept. 2009);
  • Some Statutory Changes Affect Provisions on Life-or-Death and Other Medical Decisions, Sharp Thinking No. 25 (Oct. 2009);
  • Will-Contest Bar Doesn’t Affect Inheritance Interference Suit, Sharp thinking No. 26 (Nov. 2009);
  • Decision Raises Doubt as to Employer Ability to Settle Disputed Wage Claims, Sharp Thinking No. 29 (January 2010);
  • Federal Rules Provide the Pattern for Proposed Illinois Rules of Evidence, Sharp Thinking No. 32 (April 2010);
  • “Case Within A Case” Not Always A Requirement in Legal Malpractice, Sharp Thinking No. 35 (July 2010);
  • Simplified Rules Apply To Obtaining Possession or Receivership With Non-Residential Mortgages, Sharp Thinking No. 36 (Aug. 2010);
  • Court Ups The Ante on Requests To Admit, Sharp Thinking No. 38 (Nov. 2010);
  • Iqbal and Twombly Raise The Standards for Affirmative Defenses in The Federal System, Sharp Thinking No. 41 (Jan. 2011);
  • ABCs: Court Issues a Primer on Assignments for Benefit of Creditors, Sharp Thinking No. 42 (Feb. 2011);
  • Banking Law Roundup, Sharp Thinking No. 43 (March 2011);
  • New Duties Loom for Agents Under Illinois Powers of Attorney, Sharp Thinking No. 44 (March 2011);
  • Changes to Statutory Powers of Attorney for Property To Be Required by July 1, Sharp Thinking No. 45 (April 2011);
  • Creditors Proceed – And Sometimes Do Nothing – At Their Peril When Bankruptcy “Stay” Applies, Sharp Thinking No. 47 (May 2011);
  • Sharing Information in Business Transactions May Result in Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege, Sharp Thinking No. 52 (Sept. 2011);
  • Bankruptcy Courts Prove Surprisingly Hostile to “Defense of Marriage” Act, Sharp Thinking No. 53 (Oct. 2011);
  • Lawyers Tagged With Losses for Accepting Checks Later Shown To Be Counterfeit, Sharp Thinking No. 54 (Nov. 2011);
  • Judicial Estoppel Proves Potent Weapon Against Bankruptcy Fraud, Sharp Thinking No. 57 (Feb. 2012);
  • Posner Pens A Primer on Promissory Fraud, Sharp Thinking No. 59 (Mar. 2012);
  • Affordable Mortgage Program Is Enforceable Through State Causes of Action, Sharp Thinking No. 61 (Apr. 2012);
  • Debt Collection Law Often Misunderstood, Sharp Thinking No. 62 (Apr. 2012);
  • Collection Agency Non-Registration Voids Judgment, Sharp Thinking No. 65 (June 2012);
  • Violation of Citation Justifies Serious Sanctions, Sharp Thinking No. 68 (July 2012).
  • New Corporation Sometimes May Be Held Liable for Old Corporation’s Debts, Sharp Thinking No. 75 (Oct. 2012);
  • No “Subject Matter Waiver” of Privilege from Disclosure in Business Transaction, Sharp Thinking No. 81 (Dec. 2012);
  • Guaranty Triggered by Resistance to Foreclosure Is Enforceable, Sharp Thinking No. 85 (Mar. 2013);
  • Court Levies Harsh Sanctions for Filing Bankruptcy Papers Without Actual Signatures, Sharp Thinking No. 86 (Mar. 2013);
  • Supreme Court Adopts New Foreclosure Rules, Sharp Thinking No. 89 (May 2013);
  • Cross-Collateralization Clauses in Commercial Mortgages Are Enforceable, Sharp Thinking No. 91 (May 2013);
  • Wage Payment Act Imposes No Duty To Make More Capital Contributions To Failing Business, Sharp Thinking No. 95 (July 2013);
  • Judicial Estoppel Doctrine Is Flexible, 7th Circuit Emphasizes, Sharp Thinking No. 97 (Aug. 2013);
  • ISBA Suggests Duty to Make "Noisy Withdrawal," Sharp Thinking No. 99 (Sept. 2013);
  • Warranty Deed in Mortgage Rescue Scan May Have Been An Equitable Mortgage, Court Says, Sharp Thinking No. 100 (Oct. 2013);
  • Bankruptcy Discharge May Justify HAMP Re-review, Sale Suspension, Sharp Thinking No. 101 (Oct. 2013);
  • Appellate Court Issues Valuable Primer On Liquidated Damages Clauses in Contracts, Sharp Thinking No. 110 (March 2014);
  • Shareholder, Officer Status Not Required To Pierce Corporate Veil, Sharp Thinking No. 113 (Apr. 2014);
  • Plaintiff Must Show Due Inquiry Before Publication, Sharp Thinking No. 125 (Jan. 2015);
  • Court Issues Key Decision On “Merger” Clauses, Sharp Thinking No. 126 (January 2015);
  • “In Rem” Deficiency Judgments: Risky Nonsense, Sharp Thinking No. 127 (February 2015);
  • Rule 277(f) Provides Affirmative Defense In Citation Cases, Sharp Thinking No. 128 (March 2015);
  • Intent To Benefit Certain Creditors Sufficient For Fraud, Sharp Thinking No. 129 (May 2015);
  • Courts Split On Whether Guarantors Are "Applicants" Under Credit Opportunity Act, Sharp Thinking No. 130 (June 2015);
  • New Disclosure Rule, Closing Procedures Will Impact Real Estate Transactions, Sharp Thinking No. 131 (July 2015);
  • Foreclosure Sale Purchaser May Profit On Resale, Sharp Thinking No. 134 (October 2016);
  • Door Opens For Condoning Respondents' Snubbing Of Citations To Discover Assets, Sharp Thinking No. 142 (February 2017);

Lectures, Seminars and Other Educational Activities:

  • Adjunct Instructor, Pretrial Civil Litigation, DePaul University College of Law, 1990-91;
  • Lecturer, Debt Collection in Illinois, National Business Institute, 2004;
  • Lecturer, Powers of Attorney and the Impaired Client, Franklin County Bar Association, 2012;
  • Lecturer, Important Issues for Litigation Under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention & Consumer Protection Act, Southern Illinois Bankers Seminar, 2005;
  • Consultant on Business Law course, The American School, 1997-98;
  • Speaker, Advance Directives: Living Wills & The Alternatives, Mt. Vernon (IL) Rotary, 2010;
  • Lecturer, Living Wills & the Alternatives, Grace United Protestant Church, Park Forest, IL, 2004;
  • Lecturer Wills & the Alternatives, Grace United Protestant Church, Park Forest, IL, 2004;
  • School Reform Advisory Project, Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 1987-91;
  • Adviser, Kenwood Academy Local School Council, Chicago, 1991-97;
  • Adjunct Faculty at DuSable High School, Chicago Coalition for Law-Related Education, 1989;
  • Cooperating evaluator, Southern Illinois University School of Law moot court competitions, 2004-date.

Honors:

  • Martindale-Hubbell Rating: AV
  • Leading Lawyers Network;
  • Super Lawyers of Illinois;
  • Litigation Counsel of America;
  • Martindale-Hubbell Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers;
  • President, The Rotary Club of Mt. Vernon, Illinois, 2011-12;
  • Chicago Bar Association Pro Bono Service Award, 1997;
  • Who’s Who in American Law, 1994-95;
  • Sigma Delta Chi (Society of Professional Journalists) College Newspaper Editorial Excellence Award, 1970.

Member:

  • American Bar Association;
  • Illinois State Bar Association;
  • Jefferson County Bar Association.

Writings Cited:

  • State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Westbrooke, 151 S.W.2d 364 (Mo. 2005);
  • Wells Dairy, Inc. v. American Industrial Refrigeration, Inc., 690 N.W.2d 38 (Iowa 2004);
  • Save Sunset Beach Coalition v. City and County of Honolulu, 102 Hawaii 465, 78 P.3d 1 (Hawaii 2003);
  • Doe v. Maret, 984 P.2d 980 (Utah 1999);
  • Harris v. Drake, 116 Wash.App. 261, 65 P.3d 350 (2003);
  • Koch Foods of Ala. LLC v. General Elec. Capital Corp., 531 F.Supp.2d 1318 (M.D. Ala. 2008);
  • United States ex rel. Bagley v. TRW, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 170 (C.D. Cal. 2001);
  • Murray v. Gemplus Int’l, S.A., 217 F.R.D. 362, 156 Fed.R.Serv.3d 856 (E.D. Pa. 2003);
  • VLT, Inc. v. Lucent Tech., Inc., 54 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1319, 2003 WL 151399 (D. Mass. 2003);
  • JWP Zack, Inc. v. Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Co-op., Inc., 709 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. App. 1999);
  • Cooper v. Dunmore Homes, Inc., 2007 WL 2460740 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2007);
  • American Bar Association Committee on Negotiated Acquisitions, Model Joint Venture Agreement with Commentary (Am. Bar Ass’n 2007);
  • American Jurisprudence 2d: 23 Am. Jur. 2d, Depositions and Discovery §§ 27, 30, 49, 137, 144; 29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 696; 81 Am. Jur. 2d, Witnesses § 282;
  • American Jurisprudence Business & Legal Forms: 2B Am. Jur. Legal Forms 2d, Ch. 25 Assignments, Summary; 3 Am. Jur. Legal Forms 2d, Ch. 30 Attorneys, Part I; 15 Am. Jur. Legal Forms 2d, Physicians & Surgeons § 202:2.
  • American Jurisprudence Pleading & Practice Forms: 9A Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms, Estoppel & Waiver, Parts I, II and III References; 9A Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms, Evidence, Part I; 10A Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms, Expert & Opinion Evidence, Part I References;
  • Laura B. Bartell, Associate Professor of Law, Wayne State University, The Implied Waiver Solution To The Problem of Privilege in The Individual Bankruptcy Case, 20 Bankr. D.J. 25 (2003);
  • Benjamin H. Barton, Associate Professor of Law, University of Tennessee, Do Judges Systematically Favor the Interests of the Legal Profession?, 59 Ala. L. Rev. 453 (2008);
  • George L. Blum, J.D., "Communications" Within Testimonial Privilege of Confidential Communications Between Husband and Wife as Including Knowledge Derived from Observation by One Spouse of Acts of Other Spouse, 23 A.L.R. 6th 1 (2007);
  • A. Lee Bradford, Member of the Florida Bar, Motions for Production and Inspection, 4 Am. Jur. Trials 223 (Nov. 2007 Update);
  • Kenneth S. Broun, Brandis Professor of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Memorandum to the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules of the Judicial Conference (Jud. Conf. Adv. Comm. on Evidence Rules 2005);
  • Kenneth S. Broun, Brandis Professor of Law, University of North Carolina, Giving Certification A Second Chance – Testimonial Privileges and The Federal Rules of Evidence, 53 Hastings L.J. 769 (2002);
  • California Law Revision Com’n, Recommendation: Waiver of Privilege by Disclosure, Calif. Law Revision Com’n 2004-2005 Recommendations 265 (Pub. 221 Nov. 2004);
  • California Law Revision Com’n, Staff Memorandum 2001-29: Evidence Code Changes Required by Electronic Communications (May 14, 2001);
  • Julie Cohen, Look Before You Leap: A Guide to the Law of Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged Information in the Era of E-Discovery, 93 Iowa L. Rev. 627 (2008);
  • Connecticut General Statutes Annotated § 54-41h;
  • Paul M. Crimmins, Member of the Illinois Bar, Tax Treatment Of Contingent Liabilities On The Sale Of A Business, 40 DePaul L. Rev. 819 (1991);
  • Richard L. Cupp, Jr., Professor of Law, Pepperdine University, Redesigning Successor Liability, 1999 U. Ill. L. Rev. 845;
  • Martin L. Dean et al., Managing Litigation, 51 Am. Jur. Trials 1 (Nov. 2007 Update);
  • Byron F. Egan, Member of the Texas Bar, Dealing with Auditors After Sarbanes-Oxley (Univ. Tex. Corp. Counsel Inst. 2006);
  • Byron F. Egan, Member of the Texas Bar, et al., How to Respond to Audit Letters (State Bar of Tex. C.L.E. Program 2005);
  • Byron F. Egan, Member of the Texas Bar, Training Lawyers & Law Students How to Do Deals (Am. Bar Ass’n Section of Bus. L. Spring Program 2003);
  • Byron F. Egan, Member of the Texas Bar, Communications Among Lawyers and Accountants – Maintaining the Privilege (5th Ann’l Gas & Power Inst. 2006);
  • Byron F. Egan, Member of the Texas Bar, Batten Down the Hatches – Being Prepared for Stormy Seas (State Bar of Texas C.L.E. 2002);
  • James M. Fischer, Professor of Law, Southwestern University, Ethically Handling the Receipt of Possibly Privileged Information, 1 St. Mary’s J. of Legal Malp. & Ethics 200 (2011);
  • James M. Fischer, Professor of Law, Southwestern University, How Should Lawyers Handle the Unintended Disclosure of Possibly Privileged Information?, ExpressO;
  • James M. Fischer, Professor of Law, Southwestern University, The Attorney-Client Privilege Meets the Common Interest Arrangement: Protecting Confidences While Exchanging Information for Mutual Gain, 16 Rev. Litig. 631 (1997);
  • Thomas M. Geisher, Jr., Member of the New York Bar, Proof of Basis for, and Grounds for Lifting, Work Product Protection Against Discovery, 39 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 1 (June 2007 Update);
  • Thomas M. Geisher, Jr., Member of the New York Bar, Proof of Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege, 32 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 189 (June 2007 Update);
  • Christopher N. George, Member of the Illinois Bar, Someone's Watching: Protecting Privilege On Both Sides Of The Table During Electronic Discovery, 2004 U. Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol'y 283;
  • Timothy P. Glynn, Professor of Law, Seton Hall Univ., One Privilege to Rule Them All? Some Post-Sarbanes-Oxley and Other Reflections on a Federally Codified Attorney-Client Privilege, 38 Loyola L.A. L. Rev. 597 (2004);
  • Harry M. Gruber, Member of the Maryland Bar, Note, E-Mail: The Attorney-Client Privilege Applied, 66 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 624 (1998);
  • Helen Gunnarsson, Member of the Illinois Bar, Are Courts Cracking Down On Refusals to Answer Requests to Admit?, 99 Ill. B.J. 69 (2011);
  • Jonathan L. Hafetz, Attorney, Partnership for The Homeless, “A Man’s Home Is His Castle?”: Reflections on The Home, The Family, and Privacy During The Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries, 8 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 175 (2002);
  • Richard J. Heafey, Member of the California Bar and of the Adjunct Faculty, University of San Francisco Law School, Return to Sender? Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged Information (Berkeley Elec. Press 2004);
  • Janet L. Higley, Member of the North Carolina Bar, et al., Confidentiality of Communications by In-House Counsel for Financial Institutions, 6 N. Car. Banking Inst. 265 (2002);
  • Richard M. Hynes, Associate Professor, William & Mary School of Law, Bankruptcy & State Collections: The Case of the Missing Garnishments, 91 Cornell L. Rev. 603 (2006);
  • Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated (West): 735 ILCS 5/2-209, 8-801, 8-802, 8-802.1, 8-802.2, 8-803, 8-901; 740 ILCS 170/1, 2, 2.1, 5; 815 ILCS 505/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6.1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10a, 10b, 11, 11a, 12; 820 ILCS 115/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14;
  • Edward J. Imwinkelried, Professor of Law, University of California at Davis, The New Wigmore: A Treatise on Evidence, Evidentiary Privileges § 6.12.4 (Aspen 2002);
  • Edward J. Imwinkelried, Professor of Law, University of California at Davis, Determining Preliminary Facts Under Federal Rule 104, 45 Am. Jur. Trials 1 (Nov. 2007 Update);
  • Iowa Code Annotated § 808B.4;
  • Adam K. Israel, To Scrub or Not to Scrub: The Ethical Implications of Metadata and Electronic Data Creation, Exchange and Discovery, 60 Ala. L. Rev. 469 (2008);
  • Leland V. Jones, Assistant Professor, Police Science Department, California State College at Los Angeles, Locating and Preserving Evidence In Criminal Case, 1 Am. Jur. Trials 555 (Nov. 2007 Update);
  • Jonathon Riley Key, Note, Misguided Paternalism: The U.C.C. and FTC’s Attempt to Limit Wage Assignments, 62 Ala. L. Rev. 623 (2011);
  • Dennis R. Kiker, Member of the Virginia Bar, Waiving the Privilege in a Storm of Data: An Argument for Uniformity and Rationality in Dealing with the Inadvertent Production of Privileged Materials in the Age of Electronically Stored Information, 12 Richmond J.L. & Tech. 15 (2006);
  • Dennis R. Kiker, Member of the Virginia Bar, The Privilege Sieve: Inadvertent Disclosure of E-Information, For the Defense 26 (Defense Research Inst. June 2006);
  • Dennis R. Kiker, Member of the Virginia Bar, Electronically Stored Information and The Problem of Inadvertent Disclosure, The Electronic Discovery Counselor (Jan. 8, 2009);
  • Jason J. Kilborn, Assistant Professor of Law, Louisiana State University, Mercy, Rehabilitation, and Quid Pro Quo: A Radical Reassessment of Individual Bankruptcy, 64 Ohio St. L.J. 855 (2003);
  • Damon A. King, J.D., Competency of One Spouse to Testify Against Other in Prosecution for Offense Against Child of Both or Either or Neither, 119 A.L.R. 5th 275 (2004);
  • Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, The Securities Enforcement Manual (Am. Bar Ass’n 2d ed. 2007);
  • Richard J. Kohlman, Member of the California Bar, Protected Communication Between Physician and Patient, 45 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 595 (June 2007 Update);
  • Richard J. Kohlman, Member of the California Bar, Trial Court Restrictions on Evidence of Defendant's Wealth, 30 Am. Jur. Trials 711 (Nov. 2007 Update);
  • Raymond P. Kolak, Member of the Illinois Bar, The Dangers Of Successor Liability When Buying Illinois Business Assets, 93 Ill. B.J. 640 (2005);
  • Gloria A. Kristopek, Note: To Peek or Not to Peek: Inadvertent or Unsolicited Disclosure of Documents to Opposing Counsel, 33 Val. U. L. Rev. 643 (1999);
  • Robert Laurence, Leflar Professor of Law, University of Arkansas, Tribute: Out of State Garnishments, 50 Ark. L. Rev. 415 (1997);
  • Robert Laurence, Leflar Professor of Law, University of Arkansas, The Off-Reservation Garnishment of an On-Reservation Debt and Related Issues in the Cross-Boundary Enforcement of Money Judgments, 22 Am. Indian L. Rev. 355 (1998);
  • Monique C.M. Leahy, Member of the Washington Bar, Use of Call Detail Record Evidence in Telecommunications "Phantom Traffic" and Other Litigation, 86 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 217 (June 2007 Update);
  • Monique C.M. Leahy, Member of the Washington Bar, Telecommunications and Other Litigation: Call Detail Records and Fraud, 97 Am. Jur. Trials 1 (Nov. 2007 Update);
  • Monique C.M. Leahy, Member of the Washington Bar, et al., Admission of Email Evidence in Civil Actions, 103 Am. Jur. Trials 123 (Nov. 2007 Update);
  • Melanie B. Leslie, Associate Professor, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, The Costs of Confidentiality and The Purpose of Privilege, 2000 Wis. L. Rev. 31;
  • Adjoa Linzy, Duke Univ. School of Law, The Attorney-Client Privilege and Discovery of Electronically-Stored Information, 2011 Duke Law & Tech. Review No. 001;
  • Martin A. Little, Member of the Nevada Bar, Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged Information: One Lawyer’s Nightmare and Another’s Dream, Nevada Lawyer, Sept. 1, 2001;
  • Sam A. Mackie, Member of the Florida Bar and Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Central Florida, Proof of Unauthorized Disclosure of Confidential Patient Information by a Psychotherapist, 24 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 123 (June 2007 Update);
  • P. Magarick, Member of the New York Bar, Investigating the Civil Case – General Principles, 1 Am. Jur. Trials 357 (Nov. 2007 Update);
  • McKinney’s Consolidated Laws of New York Annotated, CPLR §§ 3101, 4503;
  • Kenneth J. Melilli, Professor of Law, Albany Law School, Witness Preparation, 61 Am. Jur. Trials 269 (Nov. 2007 Update);
  • Edward A. Morse, McGrath North Mullin & Kratz Chair in Business Law, Creighton University School of Law, Technological Entanglements: Evidentiary and Ethical Considerations of Metadata in Interjurisdictional Litigation, 2 J. Int’l Com’l L. & Tech. 94 (2007);
  • Robert P. Mosteller, Chadwick Professor of Law, Duke University, Admissibility of Fruits of Breached Evidentiary Privileges: The Importance of Adversarial Fairness, Party Culpability, and Fear of Immunity, 81 Wash. U.L.Q. 961 (2003);
  • Henry S. Noyes, Professor of Law, Chapman University, Federal Rule of Evidence 502: Stirring the State Law of Privilege and Professional Responsibility with a Federal Stick, 66 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 673 (2009);
  • Oklahoma Statutes Annotated: 12 Okl. Stat. Ann. §§ 2510, 2511, 2512; 13 Okl. Stat. Ann. § 176.8;
  • Caine O’Rear III and Bryan A. Thames, Inadvertent or Unauthorized Disclosure of Privileged And/Or Confidential Documents: What Do You Do And What Is The Effect?, Am. Bar Assn.;
  • Catherine Palo, J.D., LL.M., The Use of Discovery in Product-Related Burn Injury Cases, 99 Am. Jur. Trials 141 (Nov. 2007 Update);
  • C.S. Parnell, Effect Of Divorce Or Annulment On Competency Of One Former Spouse As Witness Against Other In Criminal Prosecution, 38 A.L.R. 2d 570 (June 2007 Update);
  • Andrew N. Plasz, Member of the Illinois Bar, Waiver Of Privilege For Documents Inadvertently Disclosed During Discovery, 93 Ill. B.J. 126 (2005);
  • Revised Statutes Annotated of State of New Hampshire, N.H. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 22;
  • Paul R. Rice, Professor of Law, American University, Attorney-Client Privilege in the United States § 9:1 (Thomson West 2d ed. 2007);
  • Henry B. Rothblatt, Member of the New York Bar, Pretrial Procedures and Motions In Criminal Cases, 5 Am. Jur. Trials 27 (Nov. 2007 Update);
  • William C. Saturley and Beth H. Kissinger, Members of the New Hampshire Bar, Dancing in Secret: The Ethical Dilemma of Disclosure and Confidentiality in Trade Secret Cases, N.H. Bar J. 24 (Spring 2012);
  • Paula Schaefer, Associate Professor of Law, University of Tennessee, The Future of Inadvertent Disclosure: The Lingering Need to Revise Professional Conduct Rules, 69 Md. L. Rev. 109 (2010);
  • Paul D. Seyferth, Member of the Missouri Bar, Taking the Deposition of the Sexual Harassment Plaintiff, 65 Am. Jur. Trials 65 (Nov. 2007 Update);
  • Gregory D. Shelton and Taryn Darling Hill, Members of the Washington Bar, Protecting Against Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege or Work-Product Protection Due to Inadvertent Disclosure, Bar News (Wash. State Bar Ass’n June 2007);
  • Marjorie A. Shields, J.D., Discovery of Deleted E-mail and Other Deleted Electronic Records, 27 A.L.R. 6th 565 (2007);
  • Marjorie A. Shields, J.D., Application of Attorney-Client Privilege to Electronic Documents, 26 A.L.R. 6th 287 (2007);
  • Marjorie A. Shields, J.D., Invocation and Effect of State Secrets Privilege, 23 A.L.R. 6th 521 (2007);
  • Paul J. Sigwarth, Note, It’s MY Privilege and I’ll Assert It If I Want To: The Attorney-Client Privilege in Closely-Held Corporations, 23 J. Corporation L. 345 (1997-98);
  • Charles M. Sink & Krista L. Pages, False Claims in Construction Contracts (Am. Bar Ass’n 2007);
  • South Dakota Codified Laws §§ 19-13-24, 19-13-26, 19-13-27, 23A-35A-19;
  • Laura Denvir Stith, Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, Just Because You Can Measure Something, Does It Really Count?, 58 Duke L.J. 1743 (2009);
  • Mikah K. Story, Associate Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 21st Century Pillow-Talk: Applicability of Marital Communications Privilege to Electronic Mail, 58 S.C.L. Rev. 275 (2006);
  • Andrew R. Taggart, Member of the Illinois Bar, Parent-Subsidiary Communications and the Attorney-Client Privilege, 65 U. Chi. L. Rev. 315 (1998);
  • Tracy Turner, Director Legal Analysis, Writing and Skills Program, Southwestern Law School, E-Mail Etiquette in the Business World, 18 Perspectives: Teaching Legal Research & Writing 18 (Fall 2009);
  • United States Code Annotated (West): U.S.C.A. Const., Amend. I References & Annotations, Amend. IV, Amend. XIV References & Annotations; Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 26, 34, 45; Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 501, 502, 801; 5 U.S.C.A. § 552; 12 U.S.C.A. § 1811; 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2511, 2517; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983;
  • Vernon’s Texas Rules Annotated, Texas Rules of Evidence 508, 509, 511, 512;
  • Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.01-398, 19.2-271.1, 19.2-271.2;
  • Vincent S. Walkowiak, The Attorney-Client Privilege in Civil Litigation (Am. Bar Ass’n 4th ed. 2009);
  • West’s Alaska Statutes Annotated § 12.37.050;
  • West’s Annotated California Evidence Code §§ 912, 953, 954;
  • West’s Annotated Code of Maryland, Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 10-407;
  • West’s Annotated Code of Virginia §§ 8.01-398, 19.2-271.1, 19.2-271.2;
  • West’s Annotated Code of West Virginia § 62-1D-9;
  • West’s Annotated Indiana Code § 34-46-3-1;
  • West’s Annotated Mississippi Code § 41-29-511;
  • West’s Code of Georgia Annotated §§ 24-9-21, 24-9-25;
  • West’s Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated § 16-15-102;
  • West’s Florida Statutes Annotated §§ 90.502, 90.507, 90.508, 934.08, 934.22;
  • West’s General Laws of Rhode Island Annotated §12-5.1-10;
  • West’s Kansas Statutes Annotated §§ 60-437, 60-438;
  • West’s Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 49.275, 49.355, 49.385, 49.395;
  • West’s Oregon Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 40.275, 40.280, 40.285 (2009 Update);
  • West’s Revised Statutes of Nebraska Annotated §§ 27-510, 27-511, 27-512;
  • West’s Utah Code Annotated § 77-23a-9;
  • West’s Wisconsin Statutes Annotated §§ 905.10, 905.11, 905.12, 968.29;
  • Leon L. Wolfstone, Member of the Washington Bar, Discovery-Oral Depositions, 4 Am. Jur. Trials 119 (Nov. 2007 Update);
  • John T. Woodall, Member of the Georgia Bar, Commonsense Principles of Civil Litigation, 52 Am. Jur. Trials 1 (Nov. 2007 Update);
  • Fred C. Zacharias, Professor of Law, University of California at San Diego, Harmonizing Privilege & Confidentiality, 41 S. Tex. L. Rev. 69 (1999);
  • Ken M. Zeidner, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Inadvertent Disclosure & The Attorney-Client Privilege: Looking to the Work-Product Doctrine for Guidance, 22 Cardozo L. Rev. 1315 (2001).
  • United States v. Ellis, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9729 (E.D. Pa. 2003).

Back to top