This decision addresses the procedure for determining solicitor-client privilege over documents seized during the execution of search warrants at the offices of Romspen Investment Corporation and an employee’s residence.
The court considered whether the applicant must provide particulars of the allegations, whether an independent third-party forensic analyst should be appointed to handle electronic documents, and whether amicus curiae should be appointed.
The court declined to order particulars, ordered the appointment of a third-party analyst to copy electronic documents, and deferred the decision on appointing amicus curiae.
The ruling emphasizes the importance of protecting solicitor-client privilege and outlines the context-specific procedures courts may adopt.
