The subject matter waiver doctrine posits that a client's offer of his or his attorney's testimony as to a specific attorney-client communication waives the attorney-client privilege for all other communications on the same subject matter.  Generally, the doctrine arises in litigation where a party discloses some art of privileged communications yet still wishes to keep privileged some other parts.  Application of the subject matter waiver, however, raises different concerns when the privileged comunications are disclosed in an extrajudicial setting, such as during business or commercial transaction negotiations.  The Illinois Supreme Court held recently in Center Partners, Ltd. v. Growth Head GP, LLC, No. 113107 (November 29, 2012), "that subject matter waiver does not apply to the extrajudicial disclosure of attorney-client communications not thereafter used by the client to gain an adversarial advantage in litigation."  
Center Partners is a business tort suit, and at issue were disclosures of privileged communications among some of the defendants while they were negotiating with third parties and among themselves the terms of a real estate and commercial property deal.  The plaintiffs invoked the subject matter waiver doctrine and argued that these disclosures waived the privilege as to all communications on the same subject matter.  The Illinois Supreme Court following decisions of the Second and First Circuits disagreed unanimously.

At some point in your law school experience, you’re likely to encounter a professor who — brilliant though he or she may be — just isn’t that interested in discussing “the law.” Sure, they’ll go on for hours about their pet theory of justice, or an esoteric research problem they’re working on, but good luck getting them to explain how Rule 4(k)(2) works.
This can be a frustrating scenario. (After all, you are paying for LAW school.)
Chances are good they’re not going to change their teaching style (hooray, tenure), but you can develop some coping mechanisms.
Handling Professors Who Don’t Teach “The Law”
With the right mindset, all is not lost.

Unhappy lawyers often think that their problem is simply their horrible job. And I’ll be the first in line to say that the daily job of practicing law is nasty. Unpleasant, hostile people (and then there’s opposing counsel), unrelenting pressure of perfectionism, too damned much tedium and unbearable boredom, plus there are far, far too many hours expected.
But there’s also another truth at work: Some of the horridness of your job stems from your own toxic attitudes. About money, about what work should and should not be, about what you need to feel OK about yourself, about what you should do in the face of obstacles and roadblocks.
Would you agree with an alcoholic who says that she just needs to move away from her toxic spouse, and everything will be fine? Likely not. Yes, breaking up that dysfunctional dynamic is very important, but it’s not the whole solution. Because we all know the arc of the story when the alcoholic doesn’t see her own choices as part of her problem: The wife will simply choose another toxic person to replace the spouse. That’s the choice that feels familiar, and even though dysfunctional, oddly comforting.

I’ve been thinking about a lot of loosely-related things lately, which are gradually coalescing into one question:
Why aren’t women getting ahead?
And what can be done about it? (Okay, technically that’s two questions, but bear with me.)
What’s the Problem?
Is the problem that women don’t ask? Or are they asking, but still not being rewarded? Are men just more willing to engage in ridiculous self-aggrandizing behavior to get ahead?

M. Todd Henderson of Chicago has written Self-Regulation for the Mortgage Industry. Here's the abstract:

We’ve got a mouse living under our kitchen sink. I’ve been trying to kill it, but now I’m wondering if I couldn’t use as it pet therapy. It doesn’t seem to be helping with my anger management.
We also have a gopher! It’s ruining the back yard. I bought some device to kill it: basically a smoke bomb that you light and then quickly bury into the sucker’s hole. It has a fuse that lights — and progresses — remarkably and comically quickly. After buried, you can hear the device fizzing and smoking in the hole for seems like a really long time. It’s suppose to suffocate the rodent. I’ve tried 3 of them. They don’t work, but they’re really fun.
Speaking of pests and the fun they can bring, back to the plaintiff one of my music copyright cases. We’ve moved for summary judgment, and plaintiff has opposed (naturally). One of plaintiff’s arguments is interesting. Although I told the court to assume access for purposes of this motion, the plaintiff has tried to make an issue out of access, and more particularly out of access in light of the 9th Circuit’s unique take on the “inverse ratio rule.”

Is the risk of relapse a
continuing disability requiring payment of long-term disability (LTD) benefits? The
First Circuit considered this question and decided the answer was
"yes" in its recent decision, Colby v. Union Security Insurance
Company, No. 11-2270 (January 17, 2013).
Julie Colby worked long hours as an anesthesiologist, suffered
from severe back pain, and, as a result of her access to pain medication
through her job developed a troubling opoid dependence.  After being
discovered passed out by a colleague, she underwent in-patient substance
abuse treatment at a facility in Atlanta, Georgia.   

Here at The Girl’s Guide, we’re a sucker for lawyer-turned-entrepreneurs. (I wonder why.)
Today, we’re excited to introduce you to Elizabeth Leonard, a Penn Law grad who left her public interest law job to create Blue Bridge Project, which provides life-changing travel experiences to high-school students.
Ever wanted to chuck your law job and travel the world? Well, Elizabeth actually did it! Here’s her story:
You have an interesting background, in that you went to law school, worked as a public interest lawyer, then started the Blue Bridge Project. This path from law to entrepreneur is one that’s happening a lot these days. Was this your plan when you started law school, or did it develop afterwards? How did you decide that entrepreneurship was right for you?
I knew going into law school that I wouldn’t love litigation (I was probably the only law school student who enrolled without seeing a single episode of Law & Order!) but I certainly did not know that I would start my own business within 3 years of graduation.
I went into public interest law because it afforded me the quickest path of learning what it was really like to be a “traditional” lawyer.
I liked working as a public interest lawyer, particularly when I interacted with clients, but the glacial pace of litigation was frustrating. I quickly realized that I was definitely a “people person” and drafting briefs in the privacy of my own office day after day got lonely for me.

I really hate how much a 25-minute walk in the morning turns my mood around. There, I said it! As a coach, I’m all about tools to improve your life and get you moving forward toward your dreams. I feel like I should be enthusiastic and positive about the ones I know that work, like exercise,
I’m just not that into walking. The movement itself does not thrill me. Unlike my new love, tai chi, which is graceful and flowing; I just adore it. Or like some of my old loves, horseback riding and dancing. All about flow and grace and harmony, some of my most favorite things.
But this morning, it was finally sunny and heading toward warm for the first time in a while, my mood was crashing, and I knew I needed to rebalance those pesky perimenopause hormones by moving. So I did. I went for a walk.
I am very fortunate that my street is pretty interesting for me. I love gardening, and there are lots of nice gardens along the way to admire and inspire. Plus the singer in me loves hearing the birds chirping like mad to catch up on their chatter lost to nasty weather lately. It is a feast for some of my senses, and I do try to really observe, notice and appreciate what’s around me. In other words, I am present as I walk.