I feel the distinctions are very important, for obvious reasons, such as writing about them in motions, memoranda, etc.
The privilege is between DCasey and the lead attorney working for Casey, and it's called the attorney work product privilege. It is the attorney work product privilege that allows JBaez to speak freely with DCasey and without fear of a disclosure adverse to his client. In LA, if the PI gives the information he received from the attorney to a 3rd party, it's called a violation of the attorney work product privilege.
Perhaps this will help you to understand the verbiage that is appropriate:
SNIPPED: "... plaintiffs' motion for the Rainwater Statement was untimely and
in violation of the work product privilege when its failure to amend the substance of its answers to interrogatory number 11 misled the plaintiffs and the trial court...."
See Masters v. Courtesy Ford Co., Inc., 758 So.2d 171, La.App. 2 Cir.,1999.
and yet another:
SNIPPED: "...witness could properly be required to answer, in a pretrial discovery deposition, all questions of fact in regard to his appraisal of property and method and manner used in making the appraisal and such order could not be construed as
a violation of the work product statute ..."
See State Through Dept. of Highways v. Riverside Realty Co., 152 So.2d 345, La.App. 1963.