2016 Pa. Super. 12 - Commonwealth v. Schultz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As our Rules of Professional Conduct illustrate, communications between a putative client and corporate counsel are generally privileged prior to counsel informing the individual of the distinction between representing the individual as an agent of the corporation and representing the person in his or her personal capacity. See Pa.R.Prof.Conduct 1.2(c) (lawyer may limit scope of representation provided the client gives informed consent); -Pa.R.Prof.Conduct 1.0(e) (de fining “informed consent”); see also Pa.R.Prof,Conduct 1.6(a) (“A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out representation and except as stated in paragraphs (b) and (c).”); see also Pa,R.Prof.Conduct 1.18(b) (“Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has learned information from a prospective client shall not use or reveal information which may be significantly harmful to that person”). When corporate counsel clarifies the potential inherent conflict of interest in representing the corporation and an individual and explains that the attorney may divulge the communications between that person and the attorney because they do not represent the individual, the individual may then make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision whether to continue communicating with corporate counsel. This is all the more essential where the purpose of the indiv”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 14 - Commonwealth v. Spanier · 2016 Pa. Super. 13 - Commonwealth v. Curley

2. “Penn State had in place a well-defined' his-toricál practice and procedure for responding to subpoenas. Subpoenas that might encompass electronically stored data (such as emails and documents stored on a computer or network drive) would routinely be sent to the specialized unit called the "SOS.” These information technology professionals were trained and dedicated to assembling responsive electronically stored date in response to litigation needs or other legal process. None of the SOS professionals were ever shown subpoena 1179, nor were they directed to seek any information requested by subpoena 1179 before the arrests of Sandusky, Schultz and Curley.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 14 - Commonwealth v. Spanier · 2016 Pa. Super. 13 - Commonwealth v. Curley

3. “I’m satisfied based , on what you placed , on the record that [Ms. Baldwin] is clearly able tp proceed, on testimony with the stipulation that you communicated that you’re not going to get into an inquiry as to her representation and what that meant with regard to Mr. Curley, Mr. Schultz, and perhaps, as you said, also Mr. Spanier.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 14 - Commonwealth v. Spanier · 2016 Pa. Super. 13 - Commonwealth v. Curley