An attorney does not have to turn over the transcript of an interview with a son of his client, despite a grand jury subpoena, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled unanimously.

In a 6-0 decision, the state's high court ruled that the jury failed to show substantial need to have the transcript turned over and that the transcript is a product of attorney-client privilege.

The attorney, John Rogers, was representing a client who was a person of interest in the disappearance of the client's son. The client claimed his vehicle was stolen from a parking lot while his son, a 10-year-old with disabilities, was inside. The vehicle was later found, but the child's whereabouts remain a mystery. Rogers took the statement from his client's older son, while representing the client.

After receiving the subpoena, Rogers filed a motion to quash because he claimed it was an attorney work product and that it would be unreasonable and oppressive to release it.

The circuit court found that the transcript was not an attorney work product because it did not contain the attorney's opinions, theories or conclusions.

Because Missouri defines work product in criminal procedure only in regard to the attorney's opinions, theories or conclusions, the Missouri Supreme Court found that because grand jury proceedings do not take place before an indictment is filed, the discovery rules for criminal proceedings do not apply.

"Historically, a lawyer is an officer of the court and is bound to work for the advancement of justice while faithfully protecting the rightful interests of his clients," Judge Patricia Breckenridge wrote. "In performing his various duties, however, it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel. Proper preparation of a client's case demands that he assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference. ... Were such materials open to opposing counsel on mere demand, much of what is now put down in writing would remain unwritten. An attorney's thoughts, heretofore inviolate, would not be his own. Inefficiency, unfairness and sharp practices would inevitably develop in the giving of legal advice and in the preparation of cases for trial. The effect on the legal profession would be demoralizing. And the interests of the clients and the cause of justice would be poorly served."

  

Citibank agreed Tuesday to repay $14 million taken from 53,000 customer credit accounts, plus interest and penalties, after after a three-year investigation by the California Attorney General's office revealed the bank's policy of clearing positive balances off customer credit accounts.

Citibank used a computerized process between 1992 and 2003, which automatically and immediately erased positive balances from credit-card accounts. The Attorney General's office quotes a bank executive saying, "Stealing from our customers is a business decision, not a legal decision."

Underscoring the intentional nature of the bank's actions, the Attorney General said an insider at Citibank reported the credit sweeps to an internal audit team in 2001, and was first ignored and then fired.

The investigation took three years to complete because the state investigators had to overcome legal trench warfare from Citibank which resisted subpoenas from the state to third parties who had information about the theft, said a spokesman for the Attorney General.

"The company knowingly stole from its customers, mostly poor people and the recently deceased when it... implemented the sweeps," said California Attorney General Jerry Brown Jr.

Positive balances happen when a customer over-pays, or when a customer returns a purchase for credit. A spokesman for Brown's office, Dana Simas, said the poor and the dead tend to be less financially organized, which accounts for their increased exposure to Citibank's credit sweeps.

$1.6 million was swiped from Californians alone.

Citibank was represented in the matter by Julia Strickland and Julie Nelson with the Stroock law firm.

The settlement calls on Citibank to refund the victims for the amount stolen, along with a 10% interest. It also imposes a $3.5 million fine to be paid to California, and prevents Citibank from re-initiating the credit sweeps.

Once Citibank has complied, an independent auditor will ensure that Citibank has fulfilled its requirements.

The state's investigation was led by Frederick Acker.

A British court ordered Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Thursday to disclose secret documents that could prove critical to the defense of a Guantanamo Bay detainee who claims he was tortured while in U.S. custody on terrorism charges.

Miliband now has a week to decide whether to comply with the order to release of the documents pertaining to Binyam Mohamed's detention. The British government has argued the release of the documents could compromise national security, and it could appeal the court order.

The High Court made the ruling in the case of Mohamed, who was captured in Pakistan in April 2002 and accused of conspiring with al-Qaida leaders to attack civilians. His lawyers say the British government is withholding information about his treatment in U.S. custody which is critical to his hope of receiving a fair trial.

"The information held by the foreign secretary is not merely necessary, but essential, if Binyam Mohamed is to have his case fairly considered," Judge John Thomas wrote in the 75-page judgment.

Mohamed claims he was transferred illegally from Pakistan to Morocco after his arrest and alleges he was tortured during his 18 months in detention. Neither the United States nor Britain has disclosed any information about his time in custody until he arrived at Guantanamo Bay in 2004.

Poor schools in Illinois suffer the nation's second-largest funding gap with wealthy districts because of the state's unconstitutional school funding formula that disparately hurt black and Latino students, the Chicago Urban League claims in Cook County Court.

As a result, poor and minority students face financial crises that force them into larger classes in poorly maintained facilities; programs for music, arts and sports have been slashed; and students are denied a "high quality" elementary and secondary education guaranteed under the Illinois Constitution, the complaint states.

Despite its great capacity for raising revenue and its obligations under the Illinois Constitution to take "primary responsibility" for school funding, the State over-relies on local property taxes to finance schools, states the complaint against the State of Illinois and the State Board of Education.

Plaintiffs, the Chicago Urban League and the Quad County Urban League, are represented by Lisa Scruggs with Jenner & Block.

"Girls Gone Wild" mogul Joseph Francis faces another lawsuit, this time from billionaire Stephen Wynn, who claims that Francis defamed him with the false accusation that Wynn stiffs high rollers in his hotel casinos.

Wynn, owner of Wynn Las Vegas and the Encore, first sued Francis in July, claiming the soft-core porn king owed $2 million in gambling debts from February 2007.

Francis insisted he had already paid his debt through agreements and discounts.

Francis told The Associated Press, "The Wynn Hotel has chosen not to honor its agreement to apply certain discounts to balances they have already been paid for."

Francis also indicated that he planned on "exposing how exactly Mr. Wynn deceives his high-end customers."
Wynn responded with this defamation lawsuit in Clark County Court, claiming he has suffered injury to his reputation and "shame, mortification, hurt feelings and emotional distress."

In June, Francis pleaded not guilty to charges of tax evasion for allegedly deducting more than $20 million of bogus business expenses on his 2002 and 2003 returns. Trial is set for Sept. 16 in Los Angeles.

Francis claims that he never saw his tax returns before they were filed, and that his accountant contacted the IRS after quitting and reported the accounting mistakes to collect money through the Tax Whistleblower Program.

Wynn is represented by Frank Schreck with Brownstein Hyatt

A state judge denied E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.'s request to enforce a supply contract that Bayer CropScience canceled, threatening DuPont's supply of chemicals used in its Require and Resolve corn herbicides.

Vice Chancellor Stephen Lamb of the Delaware Chancery Court refused to grant an injunction requiring Bayer to carry through on its shipping commitment. Bayer claimed du Pont breached the contract by introducing a new product line that exceeds the scope of its license and violates the terms of the supply agreement.

But DuPont maintained that it never breached the contract, and asked the court to prevent Bayer from cutting off its chemical supply.

Concluding that the wording of the contract favors Bayer's interpretation, Vice Chancellor Lamb refused to issue the injunction.