Court holds that trial court should have examined "privileged" files more closely

In a case between the Warner Norcross & Judd law firm and its former clients, the Court of Appeals held this week that the trial judge did not adequately examine files as to which a claim of work product and attorney-client privilege was claimed.  Citing prior decisions of the Supreme Court, the appellate judges explained that the trial judge was obligated to examine the files in camera (privately in chambers) so that he could assess whether the entirety of the file documents were subject to protection or whether parts must be disclosed.