The U.S. Supreme Court case Hickman v. Taylor (1946) revolved around the issue of attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine in civil litigation discovery procedures. The dispute began when a tugboat sank, killing five crew members, after which their administrator sought to recover damages from the boat's owners and operators for alleged negligence. During pre-trial discovery, he requested all statements taken by defendants' counsel during his private interviews with surviving crew members post-accident; however, they refused on grounds of attorney-client privilege and relevancy issues. The District Court ordered them to produce these documents but was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals who held that such materials were protected as "work product". On appeal to the Supreme Court, it ruled in favor of defendants stating that forcing attorneys to disclose written statements or memoranda derived from witnesses would demoralize legal profession and reduce its quality since lawyers would be less likely conduct thorough investigations if their findings could be easily obtained by opposing parties through court orders.

In the dissenting opinion for Hickman v. Taylor, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to allow discovery of written statements from witnesses obtained by opposing counsel during pretrial investigation was a departure from traditional legal principles. He contended that such an allowance would discourage thorough and candid communication between attorneys and their clients or witnesses, thereby undermining effective legal representation. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential misuse of this rule in future cases where lawyers might be tempted to use it as a means of harassment or intimidation against opponents. In his view, the court should have upheld lower courts' decisions denying access to these documents on grounds of attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine.