In a normal business setting, the attorney-client privilege is not implicated when third-party consultants are involved in typical business functions, such as meetings, revising draft documents, and setting corporate policy. However, the privilege can be, and often is, at issue when privileged communications are shared with these consultants.
Full Answer
As long as other factors necessary to the attorney-client privilege are present, either the “translator” theory or the “functional equivalent” theory will entitle a party to claim the attorney-client privilege for communications between (a) the party’s counsel and the third-party consultants, or (b) the client and the third-party consultant in the lawyer’s presence, or (c) the …
Jun 01, 2016 · Non-testifying consultants: Does attorney-client privilege apply? Karen Franklin, Ph.D. June 1, 2016 July 13, 2020 2 , Karen Franklin, Ph.D. Is the work product of an expert who is retained only as a consultant — not as a testifying witness — confidential under the doctrine of attorney-client privilege ?
Jan 12, 2022 · In a normal business setting, the attorney-client privilege is not implicated when third-party consultants are involved in typical business functions, such as meetings, revising draft documents, and setting corporate policy. However, the privilege can be, and often is, at issue when privileged communications are shared with these consultants.
Apr 15, 2014 · Under either standard, confidential communications will only be privileged if the consultant is considered the “functional equivalent” of an employee. Courts consistently focus upon whether the consulting agreement includes characteristics that are typical of an employment relationship in deciding whether the privilege should apply.
Consultants who have been specifically retained to assist in litigation, have an extensive history of working closely with a company, and have a unique set of skills have been found to be within the scope of the attorney-client privilege.May 11, 2020
that the attorney-client privilege can protect communications between corporations and independent contractors who are the “functional equivalent” of employees, they disagree about the evidence required to meet the functional equivalent test.
Thus, where a consultant has a close working relationship with a company and performs a similar role to that of an employee, confidential communications that are made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice should be subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Gurule (2002) 28 Cal. 4th 557, 594. Extension of the attorney-client privilege to expert consultants serves the legal profession by permitting attorneys to evaluate their case in preparation for litigation without fear that the opinions they receive from consultants will later be used against their client.
The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between an attorney and a client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or services. ... Voluntary disclosure of privileged communications to a third party results in waiver of the attorney-client privilege unless an exception applies.
The general rule is that, by allowing a third party to be present for a lawyer-client conversation, the defendant waives the privilege. That generally means that the prosecution can force the third party to reveal the contents of the conversation.
Attorney-client privilege is waived by disclosing the substance of the communication to a third party. Waiver can be voluntary or involuntary (accidental).Aug 7, 2019
BOTH COMMON AND FEDERAL LAW reject the idea of an accountant-client privilege like that which exists between attorneys and their clients. However, accountant-related communications still may be shielded from disclosure when an accountant acts as an agent for an attorney providing legal services.Mar 31, 1997
The attorney-client privilege protects disclosure of a confidential communication between client and lawyer. (Evid. Code, § 954.) ... ‟ [Citations.]” “[T]he privilege is absolute and disclosure may not be ordered, without regard to relevance, necessity or any particular circumstances peculiar to the case.
Consulting experts are beneficial because neither facts known nor opinions held by a consulting expert are discoverable. ... In other words, the work of a consulting expert need not be disclosed to the opposing party, whereas the testifying expert's opinions, notes, and work product are all discoverable.
Under the federal rules, then, email communications between the expert and attorney are no longer discoverable, provided the email communication does not fit within one of the three exceptions (compensation, facts or data considered, or relied-upon assumptions).
Prepare an Engagement Letter to Take to Your First Meeting Remember, however, it will in all likelihood be discoverable by the other side; consequently, careful attention should be paid to its contents and you probably should not give it to the expert until it is final.
First, including a financial advisor in otherwise privileged communications does not waive the privilege if the advi- sor is the “functional equivalent” of an employee of the client. ... Second, the privilege is not waived if the advisor “facilitates” the render- ing of legal advice to the client.Jun 8, 2015
Initially, the attorney-client privilege applies to communications made between privileged persons (attorneys, clients, and agents of either) in confidence for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance for the client. Restatement, § 118.
Attorney-client privilege works to keep communications between a client and their attorney confidential. ... This includes paralegals, legal secretaries, and anyone else who may have interactions with privileged client communications.Aug 25, 2021
A lawyer who has received a client's confidences cannot repeat them to anyone outside the legal team without the client's consent. ... The privilege generally stays in effect even after the attorney-client relationship ends, and even after the client dies.
Some relationships that provide the protection of privileged communication include attorney-client, doctor-patient, priest-parishioner, two spouses, and (in some states) reporter-source. If harm—or the threat of harm—to people is involved, the privileged communication protection disappears.
Attorney-client privilege protects lawyers from being compelled to disclose your information to others. ... Confidentiality rules provide that attorneys are prohibited from disclosing any information for privacy reasons, unless it is generally known to others.Jan 6, 2017
Under Upjohn, an employee's communications with a corporation's attorney are considered privileged if they meet several criteria:The communications were made for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice.The substance of the communications related to the employee's work duties.More items...
California case law is unequivocal. The client of a lawyer serving as legal counsel to a corporation or other entity is that entity itself and the attorney-client relationship does not extend to the members or shareholders of the entity.
Which of the following may not be protected under the attorney-client privilege? A client who orally confesses to a crime. Correct!
The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between an attorney and a client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or services. ... Voluntary disclosure of privileged communications to a third party results in waiver of the attorney-client privilege unless an exception applies.
The metropolitan areas that pay the highest salary in the paralegal profession are Napa, San Jose, Trenton, San Francisco, and Santa Rosa.
The general rule is that, by allowing a third party to be present for a lawyer-client conversation, the defendant waives the privilege. That generally means that the prosecution can force the third party to reveal the contents of the conversation.
Five things not to say to a lawyer (if you want them to take you..."The Judge is biased against me" Is it possible that the Judge is "biased" against you? ... "Everyone is out to get me" ... "It's the principle that counts" ... "I don't have the money to pay you" ... Waiting until after the fact.Jan 15, 2010
In-house lawyers know that an email is not automatically cloaked in privilege just because a lawyer is copied on the communication.Nov 2, 2020
In practice, this means that all patient/client information, whether held on paper, computer, visually or audio recorded, or held in the memory of the professional, must not normally be disclosed without the consent of the patient/client.
The seminal decision extending the attorney-client privilege to conversations with a nonlawyer was United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 19...
Judge Friendly’s decision in Kovel said nothing about communications with public relations agents. The first case to address that issue was a trade...
The following year, however, in In re Copper Market Antitrust Litigation, 200 F.R.D. 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (Laura Taylor Swain, J.), the court recogn...
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., 2002 WL 31556383 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2002) (Henry Pitman, Magistrate Judge) — a case I...
In In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 24, 2003 Directed to (A) Grand Jury Witness Firm and (B) Grand Jury Witness, 265 F. Supp.2d 321 (S.D.N.Y....
In In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, 2003 WL 22389169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (William Pauley, J.), a class action alleging a price-fixin...
Export-Import Bank of the U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 232 F.R.D. 103 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (James C. Francis IV, magistrate Judge), was a suit b...
In the bankruptcy proceeding entitled In re Adelphia Communications Corporation, 2007 WL 601452 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007) (Cecelia Morris, Bankr. J.),...
Sieger v. Zak, 18 Misc.3d 1143(a) (Nassau County Supreme Ct. 2008) (Stephen Bucaria, J.) — one of two state court cases on the subject — was a suit...
In American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Payton Lane Nursing Home, Inc., 2008 WL 5231831 (E.D.N.Y 2008) (A. Kathleen Tomlinson, Magistrate...
The most recent case in the third-party consultant line is a state court case, Mt. McKinley Insurance Co. v. Corning Inc., 602454/2002 (N.Y. County Supreme Ct., Dec. 13, 2009) (Eileen Bransten, J.). That case asked whether a lawyer’s talks with an insurance broker to get advice and information to help a client were protected by the attorney-client privilege.
When Kovel was subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury, he refused to answer questions on grounds of attorney-client privilege. The district court rejected Kovel’s privilege claim, directed Kovel to testify, and threw him in jail when he refused.
RLM also prepared internal documents “designed to inform Sumitomo employees about what could and could not be said about the scandal.” and, together with Paul Weiss, RLM drafted public relations documents, press releases, talking points, and Questions and answers to be used as a framework for press inquiries.
The first case to address that issue was a trademark infringement action, Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v. Wachner, 198 F.R.D. 53 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (Jed S. Rakoff, J.). In May 2000, in anticipation of filing a lawsuit on behalf of Calvin Klein, the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (BSF) retained the public relations firm of Robinson Lerer & Montgomery (RLM) to act as a “consultant” to BSF for certain communications services related to BSF’s representation of Calvin Klein, Inc. (CKI). Defendants contended that BSF had retained RLM solely “to wage a press war against the defendant,” but plaintiffs said that they had retained RLM to help BSF “to understand the possible reaction of CKI’s constituencies to the matters that would arise in the litigation, to provide legal advice to CKI, and to assure that the media crisis that would ensue — including responses to requests by the media about the law suit and the overall dispute between the companies — would be handled responsibly…” The court denied Calvin KIein the protection of the attorney-client privilege, for at least three reasons.
Sieger v. Zak, 18 Misc.3d 1143 (a) (Nassau County Supreme Ct. 2008) (Stephen Bucaria, J.) — one of two state court cases on the subject — was a suit alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the majority shareholder and principal manager of PowerSystems International, Inc., which manufactured specialized trailers sold primarily to the military to service command posts and mobile hospitals. Plaintiffs were minority shareholders who had each invested $25,000 in 1995 to get the company started. By early 2004, the company was making more than $1.2 million a year in profits, and plaintiffs suggested to Zak that he sell the entire company in order to liquidate their investment. Zak then met with a business consultant named John Magee who offered to make recommendations to PowerSystems’ board of directors concerning the current and future value of the company. Magee and PowerSystems entered into a confidentiality agreement whereby Magee agreed to keep confidential pricing, customer and supplier lists, operating data, and other information obtained in the course of providing consulting services to the company. Magee also prepared an “engagement letter,” which formally outlined the services he intended to perform for PowerSystems. In the engagement letter, Magee undertook to develop a strategy and time line for “monetizing the shareholders’ investment” in PowerSystems.
Marvel Enterprises, Inc., 2002 WL 31556383 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2002) (Henry Pitman, Magistrate Judge) — a case I unintentionally omitted from my 2003 article — originated as a copyright and licensing dispute over the “X-Men” characters. Fox withheld about 15 documents that Fox had shown to certain independent contractors. In opposition to a motion to compel, Fox argued that the independent contractors to whom disclosure was made were directly involved in the production of X-Men2 and that disclosure to them did not operate as a waiver of the privilege because “they functioned as employees and Fox’s economic decision to conduct its business through independent contractors as opposed to employees should not affect the scope of its privilege.”
2003) (William Pauley, J.), a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy by Visa and Mastercard and their member banks with respect to currency conversion fees, plaintiffs moved to compel a bank (First USA) to produce documents that First USA had disclosed to employees of a third party, First Data Resources, Inc. (First Data), which provided “computing services, consulting services, and other support services to credit card issuers.” First USA, citing In re Copper Market Antitrust Litigation and other cases, claimed that the First Data Documents remained privileged because the First Data employees were the “functional equivalent” of First USA employees.
The first is that courts continue to narrowly apply the attorney-client privilege only to what is necessary to preserve its underlying purposes: the free flow of information between attorney and client, and the provision of the best legal advice possible.
Therefore, since no legal advice was given to the client by the attorney after the report was received, the privilege did not apply because the report was not prepared for the purpose of “obtaining legal advice from the lawyer.”. Id.
Reed Smith – ByLisa Baird, Colleen Davies, Andrew Stillufsen – In our modern economy, businesses regularly use all manner of third-party consultants for many different reasons, including cost, efficiency, and expertise. Less regularly, communications between businesses and consultants are the subject of discovery motion practice in litigation. Two recent decisions out of the Southern District of New York demonstrate why businesses that use third-party consultants should proceed with caution to preserve claims of attorney-client privilege, and prevent the disclosure of what would otherwise be privileged communications.
The Second Circuit held that the accountant could refuse to testify to a grand jury on privilege grounds because his services were “necessary, or at least highly useful for the effective consultation between the client and the lawyer.”. Id. at 922. Notably, however, the scope of the privilege was limited:
HR Consultant’s Report Not Privileged Because It Was Not Used to Provide Legal Advice. At issue in the first decision, Scott v.
Two Canadian law firms say they have filed a $578 million class-action lawsuit against the media companies behind Ashley Madison, following the massive hack that has exposed almost 40 million users on the adultery website.
The root of the problem lies with a basic tenet of the attorney-client privilege: communications between attorney and client are confidential, but once that communication is shared with a third party, the privilege is waived. In some cases, however, courts have found an exception to this normal waiver rule, depending upon the role ...
Counsel should be heavily involved in drafting the consulting agreement during the initial engagement and, if you have a standard initial agreement, update it. Under either standard, confidential communications will only be privileged if the consultant is considered the “functional equivalent” of an employee.
Companies can also implement policies during the course of the consultant’s work that will help protect the confidentiality of communications with counsel. Any confidential communications made for the purposes of providing or obtaining legal advice should be clearly identified.
Communications will only be privileged if they relate to confidential information shared with consultants because of their work with the company. Permitting a consultant to have access to confidential information that is not necessary to the work he or she is performing may result in waiver of the privilege.
Employees should be made aware of the company’s policies for communicating with consultants. Those policies should be in writing and made easily available. It is impossible to anticipate whether specific communications will later become the subject of litigation or a criminal investigation.
Hayes Hunt. Hayes represents corporations and individuals in a wide variety of crisis management, civil litigation and business matters in both state and federal courts throughout the country.
Counsel should take on the responsibility of following up on the information provided by the consultant. While it is not always practical to have one-on-one communications with counsel, generally limiting the number of recipients is a strong indicator to courts that the information was intended to be kept confidential.
Simply including counsel on an email sent to a large number of people will not be sufficient to maintain privilege. Ideally, communications that are intended to be privileged ...
Consultants who have been specifically retained to assist in litigation, have an extensive history of working closely with a company, and have a unique set of skills have been found to be within the scope of the attorney-client privilege.
Excela Health, 7 the special master reasoned that the privilege would not extend to communications with the consultants unless their presence was “indispensable to the lawyer giving legal advice or facilitated the lawyer’s ability to give legal advice to the client.”.
v. Ovivo USA LLC, 3 a trademark case, held that disclosure of privileged communications to a general adviser waived the attorney-client privilege. Ovivo sought communications among Digital Mentor Inc., DMI’s counsel, and William Chastain, a third-party consultant.
Lincoln hired the consultants to help update its mortality assumptions and set new cost of insurance, or COI, rates and, taking the position that the reports themselves were not privileged, produced them. Lincoln however sought to withhold communications concerning legal advice provided by its outside counsel to its in-house lawyers.
Fisher, 9 Fisher argued that two government exhibits should be excluded because they were protected by the attorney-client privilege claimed by his corporation, PCP. The government argued that the privilege was waived when PCP disclosed the documents to Atkins, the corporation’s CPA.
The court held that DMI had not shown that Chastain’s involvement met this criterion insofar as there was no documentation of Chastain’s duties with DMI or its corporate counsel, nor evidence that Chastain had specialized knowledge such that counsel would rely on him to facilitate legal advice for the company.
The court, noting that Fisher’s attorney’s argument was unsupported by any evidence or the emails themselves, held the exception to the third-party disclosure rule adopted in Kovel 10 did not apply: Fisher admits that PCP, not the lawyer, employed Atkins as an accountant.
Piercing the attorney-client privilege may be one of opposing counsel’s top priorities irrespective of the strength of their case. The privilege protects confidential communications between the client and the lawyer made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance, to “encourage full and frank communication . . . and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.” United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. at 562, 109 S.Ct. 2619 (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981) ). But the privilege may not apply, it may be waived, or there may be exceptions to it. Counsel’s position on issues concerning potentially privileged documents impacts his or her credibility with the court, so it is advisable to be fully familiar with the scope of the privilege from the first time the issue arises in a matter, and not when it is too late.
Officers, directors, and employees must rely on in-house counsel to understand the difference. The predominant purpose of the communications should seek legal services for the privilege to apply. Copying in-house counsel on communications does not make them privileged.
Clearly identify when seeking or providing legal advice. Only outside counsel should retain and communicate with consultants during litigation. Retention by in-house counsel is preferable to retention by corporate management. Explain privilege limits and waiver to the client at the beginning and throughout a matter.
An attorney-client relationship generally doesn't form until the lawyer and client agree to it. But the attorney-client privilege protects some communications made before the prospective client hires the attorney, and even some where there's never any hire. (For all kinds of information about lawyer-client relationships, ...
The potential-client-confidentiality principle also comes into play when an arrestee consults with a public defender at or from the police station or jail. The conversation is privileged, even though the public defender does not, and may never, represent the arrestee, and even though the public defender doesn't receive a fee.
So, it's a good idea to start any communication with an attorney who doesn't represent you by confirming with him or her that your communications will be privileged. Talk to a Lawyer.
You are not required to provide consent as a condition of service. Attorneys have the option, but are not required, to send text messages to you. You will receive up to 2 messages per week from Martindale-Nolo. Frequency from attorney may vary. Message and data rates may apply.
The essential purpose of the work product rule is “to keep the files of counsel free from examination by the opponent,” and the protection applies “regardless of whether the work product was prepared in anticipation of litigation.”. Id. Most notably, the protection does not depend entirely on confidentiality, and an attorney does not necessarily ...
As the purpose of the doctrine must drive the waiver analysis, we hold that the work product doctrine is waived when the work product is shared with an adversary, or disclosed in a manner which significantly increases the likelihood that an adversary or anticipated adversary will obtain it.
Whereas disclosure to a non-agent third party will generally waive the attorney-client privilege (more on that below), an attorney waives work product only through disclosure to an adversary: Whereas disclosure to a third party generally waives the attorney-client privilege, ...