While lawyers in just about any setting can play multiple roles, education lawyers seem to confront the privilege and work product implications of multiple roles more than most. In Williams v. Coppin State University, Case No. 1:23-cv-02590-JRR, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27859 (D. Md. Feb. 10, 2026), the Ogletree firm assisted defendant Coppin State — triggering a remarkably complicated privilege and work product analysis.
The court began by “conclud[ing] that regardless of how [Coppin State] and Ogletree initially conceived of or documented Ogletree’s assignment, Ogletree in fact undertook three tasks.” Id. at *2-3. First, the firm “developed a written summary of the available evidence surrounding Plaintiff’s [unexplained] allegations.” Id. at *3. Second, the firm “analyzed whether the available evidence established a violation of [Coppin State]’s Title IX policy, or other university policies.” Id. The court held that when handling these two tasks, “Ogletree was not operating as legal counsel” but instead as a “Title IX investigator” pursuant to a ” ‘Civil Rights Investigator’ contract.” Id. Third, “Ogletree analyzed the potential civil liability of [Coppin State].” Id.
To make matters even more confusing, the firm “reported the output of these three tasks in two documents.” Id. at *4. The court sorted through the two documents — finding that some portions deserved privilege and work product protection, and some did not. Among other things, the court held that Ogletree’s “fact summary . . . standing alone” did not deserve either protection, but the firm’s “condensed version of the fact summary” did. Id. Education lawyers would be wise to recognize these evidentiary complications when undertaking multiple roles.