In Re: Kayla Fox, Plaintiff v. William Alfini, Jr., D.c.; and Brady Chiropractic Group, P.c., Defend — Hood, J…

Summary

Justice Hood specially concurred in the majority opinion but expressed concern that the ruling could discourage parties from including necessary third parties in initial attorney consultations and could expose counsel's mental impressions. The concurrence identified the work product doctrine as a potential source of protection for consultation recordings and notes, subject to substantial-need and undue-hardship requirements and protection for attorney mental impressions, but concluded that Fox invoked the doctrine too late. Justice Samour, dissenting, would have required an evidentiary hearing before resolving factual conflicts concerning the necessity of Fox's parents' presence.