Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq. is a founding partner of Foote, Mielke, Chavez & O’Neil, LLC. Ms. Chavez earned her Juris Doctor degree in 1998 from Northwestern University School of Law. She was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1998 and is admitted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, the Federal Trial Bar and the Federal Court of Claims. Ms. Chavez has also been admitted pro hac vice in numerous cases nationwide. She has extensive litigation experience in multi-district litigation (“MDL”), federal and state civil litigation, class action litigation, arbitrations (including class and multi-plaintiff) and litigation before administrative tribunals, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Ms. Chavez is an accomplished trial attorney who has extensive experience in all aspects of complex civil litigation including such tasks as: case investigation, pleadings, discovery, e-discovery, document review, motion practice, trial (including class action), appeals and mediation/settlements. Her practice is focused on complex civil cases (including class, multi-plaintiff, mass tort and individual) involving competition, consumer fraud, unfair trade practices, environmental, technology, trademark, qui tam, civil rights, breach of contract, Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), employment, wage and hour, insurance and other state and federal statutory and common law claims. Ms. Chavez is involved in numerous professional organizations and is a speaker at conferences and seminars on topics such as alternative dispute resolution, mediation, class arbitration and employment law litigation.
Ms. Chavez frequently serves in leadership roles, on committees and as a team member in some of the most challenging and transformative complex civil litigation nationwide. Ms. Chavez has utilized her diverse experience and unique background to consistently provide invaluable contributions in cases that require the cooperation and collaboration of multiple plaintiffs’ counsel. Whether as a leader or a team member, Ms. Chavez consistently offers an unparalleled level of advocacy, energy, enthusiasm and commitment to her clients. Recoveries from the cases in which she has been involved (including verdicts, judgments and settlements) exceed $7 billion dollars and involve a diverse range of complex civil claims.
CLE Accreditation:
mylawCLE seeks approval in all states except VA.
|
CLE 3.00 – AK
CLE 3.00 – AL
CLE 3.00 – AR
CLE 3.00 – AZ
CLE 3.00 – CA
CLE 3.60 – CO
CLE 3.00 – DE
CLE 3.60 – FL
CLE 3.00 – GA
CLE 3.00 – HI
|
CLE 3.00 – IA
CLE 3.00 – ID
CLE 3.00 – IL
CLE 3.00 – IN
CLE 3.00 – KS
CLE 3.00 – KY
CLE 3.00 – LA
CLE 3.00 – ME
CLE 3.00 – MN
CLE 3.60 – MO
|
CLE 3.00 – MP
CLE 3.00 – MS
CLE 3.00 – MT
CLE 3.00 – NC
CLE 3.00 – ND
CLE 3.00 – NE
CLE 3.00 – NH
CLE 3.60 – NJ
CLE 3.00 – NM
CLE 3.00 – NV
|
CLE 3.60 – NY
CLE 3.00 – OH
CLE 3.60 – OK
CLE 3.00 – OR
CLE 3.00 – PA
CLE 3.60 – RI
CLE 3.00 – SC
CLE 3.00 – TN
CLE 3.00 – TX
CLE 3.00 – UT
|
N/A – VA
CLE 3.60 – VI
CLE 3.00 – VT
CLE 3.00 – WA
CLE 3.60 – WI
CLE 3.60 – WV
CLE 3.00 – WY
|
Accreditation Policy
myLawCLE will seek credit where attending attorneys are primarily licensed for all of its live webinars and live teleconferences, except in states which allow for reciprocity (see reciprocity section below). Credit for CLE in a self-study format is sought for in most states; however, some states do not allow for CLE credit to be earned in a self-study format (see the self-study section below). Many states typically decide whether a program qualifies for MCLE credit in their jurisdiction 4-8 weeks after the program application is submitted. For many live events, credit approval is not received prior to the program. Credit hours granted are subject to approval from each state.
Reciprocity
Additionally, some states allow for credit to be granted on a 1:1 reciprocal basis for courses approved in another mandatory CLE jurisdiction state. This is known as a reciprocity provision and includes the following states: AK, AR, CO, FL, ME, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NY, PR, and SD. myLawCLE does not seek direct accreditation of live webinars or teleconferences in these states.
On-demand CLE
myLawCLE will seek on-demand approval in all states except Virginia and Arkansas (outside reciprocal provisions stated above).
myLawCLE Credit Guarantee
myLawCLE offers a program and credit approval guarantee. If a registered attendee is unhappy with a CLE program they have attended, myLawCLE will offer that attended access to another complimentary CLE or a full refund in order to insure the attendeeís satisfaction.
Additionally, on all online CLE programs application for approval will be made in all states where attending attorneys are primarily licensed in. If a registered attorney does not receive credit from their state for any reason, a full refund will be granted.
Part 1: Understanding the Basics and Not-So-Basics of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine
I. Attorney–Client Privilege
a) A brief history of the origin and purpose of the attorney-client privilege
b) Scope and general elements necessary to establish attorney-client of privilege
c) Communications subject to the attorney-client privilege
d) Common aspects of the attorney-client relationship that are not privileged
e) Exceptions and waivers
f) Selected differences between federal privilege law and various state privilege law
I. Attorney Work Product Doctrine
a) Overview of Work Product Doctrine: Definition and Elements
i. Definition, Elements and Scope of Attorney Work Product Doctrine
ii. Documents and data typically protected by Attorney Work Product Doctrine
iii. Examples of documents and data determined not protected by the Work Product Doctrine
iv. Exceptions and waivers
• The basics of waiver and exceptions,
• The split among the different States
• Federal Courts, with respect to “selective waiver” Theory and “Partial Waiver” doctrine
• The Lack of Good Faith Exception
• The Self-Defense Exception
• “Crime-fraud”
v. Differences between federal attorney work product doctrine and state attorney work product doctrine laws
vi. Differences in how courts use a narrow or broad view of the protections of work product
• “Made in anticipation of litigation”
• Dual Purpose documents
• “Opinion” vs “fact” work product
Part 2: Special Issues and Emerging Challenges
I. Attorney-Client Privilege and Business Entities: Communications between in-house counsel, officers, directors, and employees
a) Are communications between corporate counsel and corporate employees protected by the attorney/client privilege?
b) Does an employee have to make the communication to counsel, acting as counsel to provide legal advice to the corporation?
c) Must the substance of the communication involve matters that fall within the scope of the corporate employee’s official duties?
d) Must the employees themselves be aware that their statements are for the purpose of obtaining legal advice for the corporation?
e) Do the communications have to have been confidential when made? Must the company keep the communications confidential?
f) Who does the attorney-client privilege attach to: the corporation or the individual employees who communicate with counsel?
g) What corporate employees have the authority to waive the privilege?
II. International Law: Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine Issues in global litigation and legal matters
III. Emerging Technology and its impact on Attorney-Client Privilege, Confidentiality and Work Product Doctrine
a) Technology aided disclosure of information and threats to attorney-client privilege
b) E-Discovery and complications with production of voluminous data
i. “Claw-Back” and “Quick-Peak” Agreements
ii. Party agreements
iii. Court orders
c) Use of enabling technologies in conducting privilege review
d) Issues involving E-Mail, instant messaging, text messaging, cloud computing and storage, mobile devices, third party vendors
e) Issues involving social media, blogs, online reviews and attorney communications on the Internet
IV. Understanding the nuances between Attorney-Client Privilege, Work Product Doctrine and Confidentiality
