[3, 4] A writ of prohibition is used "to prevent subordinate courts or other tribunals, officers or persons from usurping or exercising jurisdiction with which they are not vested." Hillsborough v. Superior Court, 109 N.H. 333, 334 (1969). This court exercises its discretionary power to issue such writs "with caution and forbearance and then only when the right to relief is clear."

Our criterion in reviewing a petition for writ of prohibition is that we will not exercise this extraordinary action, unless there is a clear case of necessity. Hillsborough v. Superior Court, 109 N.H. 333, 334, 251 A.2d 325, 326 (1969). When there is no other remedy, this court may exercise its supervisory powers and countermand, by means of a writ of prohibition, a trial court's order which is not supported by any legal authority.

Although elections usually are not stayed pending an appeal of unit determination, see N.H. Dept. of Rev. Administration v. Public Emp. Lab. Rel. Bd., 117 N.H. 976, 979, 380 A.2d 1085, 1087 (1977), the public employer should not be forced to bargain while it has a good faith appeal pending. In the absence of irreparable harm to the employees, it is better to maintain the status quo pending appeal than to subject the employer to the expense and disruption of undertaking negotiations, which may constitute irreparable harm to the employer and may be rendered unnecessary by the result on appeal. Cf. Boire v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., 515 F.2d 1185, 1193-94 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 934 (1976); Fuchs v. Steel-Fab, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 385 (D. Mass. 1973); Hillsborough v. Superior Court, 109 N.H. 333, 251 A.2d 325 (1969). We therefore hold that UNH was not required to negotiate pending appeal and that its refusal to do so is not an unfair labor practice within the meaning of RSA 273-A:5 I(e).

Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy which, although within the discretion of this court, is used with caution and forbearance and only when the right to relief is clear. Hillsborough v. Superior Court, 109 N.H. 333, 334, 251 A.2d 325, 326 (1969); Wyman v. Durkin, 114 N.H. 781, 330 A.2d 772 (1974). Although attorneys are not immune from being required to give their depositions in cases in which they are counsel, the existence of the attorney-client privilege and the work product rule make it unlikely that there would be areas of inquiry which would not be protected. Riddle Spring Realty Co. v. State, 107 N.H. 271, 220 A.2d 751 (1966); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947); United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975).

The order complained of merely preserves the status quo pending a hearing on the merits which shall be held expeditiously. Hillsborough v. Superior Court, 109 N.H. 333, 334, 251 A.2d 325, 326 (1969); Manchester Educ. Ass'n v. Superior Court, 109 N.H. 513, 514, 257 A.2d 23, 24 (1969). Petition denied.

Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy which is within the discretion of the court but which should be exercised "only when the right to relief is clear." Hillsborough v. Superior Court, 109 N.H. 333, 334, 251 A.2d 325, 326 (1969). Without passing on the merits of the jurisdictional contentions of the parties, we hold that a writ of prohibition should not issue in this case.

"Prohibition is an extraordinary writ, the purpose of which is to prevent subordinate courts or other tribunals, officers or persons from usurping or exercising jurisdiction with which they are not vested." Hillsborough v. Superior Court, 109 N.H. 333, 334, 251 A.2d 325, 326 (1969). Jurisdiction to issue such a writ is expressly granted to this court by RSA 490:4 (Supp.

This court will not interfere with the ordinary process of appeal unless there is a clear case of necessity. Hillsborough v. Superior Court, 109 N.H. 333, 251 A.2d 325 (1969). Petition dismissed.

This case has been here before on a petition for writ of prohibition. See Hillsborough County v. Superior Court, 109 N.H. 333, 251 A.2d 325. It is before us now confined to the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to a hearing before the County Commissioners on the question whether he should be removed to the county home rather than receive reasonable assistance in the way of money allowance. RSA 166:2 provides that "The county commissioners may make needful orders and regulations for the removal of county paupers to the county poor farm, or any other place by them designated; and no town shall be entitled to compensation for the support of a county pauper after notice of, and neglect to comply with, such order."

"Prohibition is an extraordinary writ, the purpose of which is to prevent subordinate courts or other tribunals, officers or persons from usurping or exercising jurisdiction with which they are not vested. The grant of such a writ is within the discretion of this court and should be used with caution and forbearance and then only when the right to relief is clear." Hillsborough v. Superior Court, 109 N.H. 333, 334. Without passing on the contentions of any of the parties to the controversy we hold that a writ of prohibition should not issue in this case. Petition denied.