{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Coversheet","Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Clien"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":1,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Coversheet","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[null,"Prepared By:","Contributors:"]
[null,"Crowe Dunlevy","Will Hoch"]
[]
[]
[]
["Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Client Privilege Guide"]
[]
["Report Generated: 5/1/2025"]
[]
["View your report results on next tab"]

{"sheet":"Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Clien","index":1,"n_rows":23,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":23,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Question","USA, Oklahoma"]
["Attorney-Client/Solicitor-Client Privilege (ACP)"]
["Is the ACP recognized in your jurisdiction?","Yes, Oklahoma recognizes the attorney-client privilege under\n 12Okl. St. Ann. § 2502."]
["If the ACP is not recognized in your jurisdiction, are there rules of professional confidentiality or other rules that would enable a lawyer or a client to withhold attorney-client communications or work product prepared by counsel from disclosure in a civil proceeding?\n\nNote: This question is directed primarily to civil law jurisdictions that do not recognize common law jurisdictions’ privilege doctrines.","Not applicable. Oklahoma recognizes the attorney-client privilege.\n"]
["Is a distinction made in applying the ACP or professional confidentiality rules in civil and criminal proceedings? May government authorities require disclosure of attorney-client communications and legal work product?","There is no distinction in applying the attorney-client privilege in civil and criminal proceedings under \n12 Okl. St. Ann. § 2502. Government authorities may not require disclosure of attorney-client communications or legal work products, absent the exceptions set out below for such subjects generally.\n"]
["In the corporate context, what test is applied to determine who within a corporation is considered the client for the purposes of the ACP?  (e.g., in the U.S.: the Upjohn approach, control group test, etc.)","Although the issue of who a “\nrepresentative of the client” has not arisen in the Oklahoma courts, the state legislature amended \n12 Okl. St. Ann. § 2502(A)(4) to closely follow the Upjohn approach (“\nany other person who, for the purpose of effectuating legal representation for the client, makes or receives a confidential communication while acting in the scope of employment for the client”).\n"]
["Is in-house counsel expected to meet a higher burden than outside counsel in order to establish that privilege applies to in-house counsel’s communications?","12 Okl. St. Ann. § 2502 does not distinguish between in-house and outside counsel.\n"]
["Civil Law Jurisdictions: May in-house counsel assert privilege or professional confidentiality?","Not applicable. Oklahoma is a common-law jurisdiction.\n"]
["Civil Law Jurisdictions: Is in-house counsel allowed to be active members of your jurisdiction’s bar?","Not applicable. Oklahoma is a common-law jurisdiction.\n"]
["Is the common interest doctrine recognized in your jurisdiction?","Yes, Oklahoma statutorily recognizes the common interest doctrine.\n"]
["How is the doctrine articulated in your jurisdiction?","12 Okl. St. Ann. § 2502(B)(3) expands the attorney-client privilege to include confidential communications made by the client, the client’s attorney, or either of their representatives “\nto an attorney or a representative of an attorney representing another party in a pending action and concerning a matter of common interest therein.”\n"]
["Must a common interest agreement be in writing?","There is no explicit requirement that a common interest agreement is in writing in either the statute or current caselaw.\n"]
["Is litigation funding permitted in your jurisdiction?  Are there any professional rules in this respect?","Yes, under \n14A Okl. St. Ann. § 3-801–17, litigation funding is permitted. There are various statutory requirements, like the licensing of the litigation funder and various disclosures to the client.  \nThere are various \nOklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct that are applicable to litigation funding. Comment 13 to \nRule 1.7 provides that an attorney may be paid for services by someone other than the client. \nRule 1.8(f) states that the client must give informed consent for such an arrangement of payment. Additionally, \nRule 5.4 prohibits the direction or regulation of the attorney’s professional judgment by a non-client who is paying the client’s legal fees.\n"]
["Have the courts in your jurisdiction addressed whether communications with litigation funders may be protected by the ACP or the work-product protection","No, this issue has yet to been addressed by the Oklahoma courts.\n"]
["Is the crime-fraud exception recognized in your jurisdiction?","Yes, Oklahoma recognizes the crime-fraud exception.\n"]
["What statutes or key court decisions articulate the crime-fraud exception in your jurisdiction?","12 Okl. St. Ann. § 2502(D)(1) states that there is no attorney-client privilege when “\nthe services of the attorney were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud.”\n"]
["Work Product Doctrine/Litigation Privilege (doctrine that protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial)"]
["Is there a statute or rule that protects information obtained or prepared in anticipation of litigation from disclosure in legal proceedings?  (In the U.S.:  What state rule is your jurisdiction’s analog to FRCP 26(b)(3)?)","Yes, \n12 Okl. St. Ann. § 3226(B)(3) protects material that is “\nprepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial.”\n"]
["What are the elements of the protection in your jurisdiction?","Ordinarily, “\na party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party….” \n12 Okl. St. Ann. § 3226(B)(3)(a).If a party shows “\nsubstantial need for the materials … and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means,” a court can order production of such material, but the court “shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of a party’s attorney or another representative concerning the litigation.” \n12 Okl. St. Ann. §3226(B)(3(a)-(b)."]
["Other Privileges"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize an accountant-client privilege?","Yes, under \n12 Okl. St. Ann. § 2502.1, communications between an accountant and client are privileged so long as the confidential communications “\nwere made in the rendition of accounting services.”\n"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize a mediation privilege?","Yes, under \n12 Okl. St. Ann. § 1824(6), mediations are confidential. Additionally, dispute resolutions are confidential under \n12 Okl. St. Ann. § 1805."]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize a settlement negotiation privilege?","Yes, under \n12 Okl. St. Ann. § 2408, settlement negotiations are “\nnot admissible to prove liability for the claim, invalidity of the claim or the amount of the claim.”\n"]