## Facts

- J. Hue Henry, an attorney, retained Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers and partner James T. McDonald, Jr. to defend against a motion seeking attorney’s fees personally against Henry in pending litigation.
- McDonald discussed the fee motion with opposing counsel and relayed the substance of those discussions to Henry.
- After the trial court denied the fee motion against Henry, Henry sought attorney’s fees against opposing counsel and the opposing party.
- Henry asked McDonald to prepare a memorandum recounting McDonald’s discussions with opposing counsel; McDonald prepared it but refused to provide Henry a copy.
- Henry sought the memorandum by subpoena in the underlying litigation; McDonald moved to quash.
- Henry also filed a separate action alleging breach of fiduciary duty and seeking an order compelling production; McDonald sought a protective order.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Georgia law, a client or the attorney owns documents in the client’s legal file, including an attorney-prepared memorandum created for the representation.
2. Whether the attorney work-product doctrine permits an attorney to withhold such a document from the client who requested it.

## Decision

- The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the outcome requiring production of the memorandum.
- The Court held that the client is the true owner of documents in the client’s legal file.
- The memorandum, created for the representation at the client’s request and kept in the client file, belonged to the client and had to be produced.
- Work-product protection did not justify withholding the memorandum from the client.

## Legal Principles

- The client is the true owner of the client’s legal file, and the client is entitled to access its contents.
- Materials prepared by counsel in furtherance of the representation and placed in the client’s file are presumptively client property.
- The work-product doctrine is primarily a protection against adversaries; it generally does not authorize withholding representation-related file materials from the client for whom they were prepared.
- Limited exceptions may permit withholding certain attorney-owned materials (e.g., internal firm administrative documents or materials whose disclosure would violate a duty to a third party), but the exception must fit the specific document.

## Conclusion

Georgia law treats the client, not the attorney, as the owner of the client’s legal file; therefore, an attorney generally must provide the client access to representation-related documents in the file, and invoking work-product protection does not ordinarily defeat the client’s request for those materials.


Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers v. Henry, 276 Ga. 571, 581 S.E.2d 37 (Ga. 2003)