Oct 31, 2013 · The attorney-client privilege is the backbone of the legal profession. It encourages the client to be open and honest with his or her attorney without fear that others will be able to pry into those conversations. Further, being fully informed by the client enables the attorney to provide the best legal advice.
Attorney-client privilege is waived when the protected person shares the information with a third-party. For instance, let’s say you told your lawyer something that you expected would be privileged. Then, you told your spouse, and that, too, is privileged. But then you told your best friend and your mom.
By Roy Simon [Originally published in NYPRR February 2010] More than six years ago, in July 2003, I published an article in NYPRR entitled The Attorney-Client Privilege and Public Relations Firms. The article reviewed a number of cases addressing whether the attorney-client privilege can apply to a lawyer’s communications with public relations agents and other third-party …
Jan 31, 2014 · On November 15, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery held that the surviving corporation in a merger owns and controls the seller’s attorney‐client privilege, including pre‐merger attorney ...
Whether in litigation or not, attorneys and clients should make sure never to forward privileged communications to anyone outside the attorney-client relationship. All emails to an outsider should be conveyed in a new email chain.Apr 22, 2019
Some lawyers mistakenly assume that the privilege protects all of their changes to clients' draft documents. However, every withheld change in such draft documents must meet the "primary purpose" test to deserve privilege protection. Typographical and stylistic revisions generally do not deserve privilege protection.Aug 29, 2018
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held, in the context of securities litigation, that a law firm's internal e-mail was privileged under the rule that documents intended solely for internal law office review are excepted from the client's presumptive access to its file.Mar 10, 2011
Emailed correspondence between attorney and client is privileged. However, the client can take some actions which will waive this attorney client privilege.Apr 28, 2021
No matter how the attorney-client privilege is articulated, there are four basic elements necessary to establish its existence: (1) a communication; (2) made between privileged persons; (3) in confidence; (4) for the purpose of seeking, obtaining or providing legal assistance to the client.
The description of the document needs to contain sufficient facts to demonstrate why that document is privileged. Privilege logs are also commonly accompanied with a “players list” that not only shows the identity of attorneys, but also the positions of the non-lawyers on the communications.Jun 29, 2018
The Attorney-Client Privilege Obviously Protects Internal Law Firm Communications, Right? The attorney-client privilege protects communications primarily motivated by clients' request for legal advice, and lawyers' response.Jun 2, 2021
Legal Advice Not all communications with a corporation's attorneys are privileged. Merely including an attorney as a recipient on a communication or inviting an attorney to a meeting does not necessarily make that communication privileged.
Non-Privileged Records . Means documents and records, whether hard copy or electronic, which are not subject to any legal privilege preventing its discovery and/or disclosure in a legal proceeding.
Generally, if a third party is present during a communication between a client and their lawyer, then the attorney-client privilege is waived.Aug 10, 2021
Legal advice privilegeThere must be a lawyer present. ... There must be an 'authorized' client present. ... There must be a communication. ... Not all preparatory material is privileged. ... The communication must be 'legal advice' ... There need not be a lawyer present. ... Litigation must be afoot or in contemplation.More items...
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...
Confidentiality prevents a lawyer from testifying about statements made by a client. A lawyer owes their client a duty of confidentiality, which means that they can’t discuss information the client has shared with them with anyone else. All private information related to a client must be kept secret.
Spouses. Reporters and sources (in some states) In professional relationships that are protected by privilege (attorney/client, doctor/patient, etc.) the purpose is to protect the client or patient.
Attorney-client privilege is waived when the protected person shares the information with a third-party. For instance, let’s say you told your lawyer something that you expected would be privileged. Then, you told your spouse, and that, too, is privileged. But then you told your best friend and your mom.
Facts: Samantha Garcia was diagnosed with cerebral palsy at about two years old. Samantha’s parents, Michelle Coffey-Garcia and Jose Garcia, petitioned the court to extend the statute of limitations past Samantha’s 8th birthday for a medical malpractice lawsuit.
Your lawyer has a legal obligation to keep your communications private. There are a few other relationships with privilege, too, like communication between spouses and doctors. But it’s important to understand exactly how and when you must communicate in order to maintain that privacy, and what kinds of communications can’t be protected.
Privilege also extends to both spoken and written communication. In most states, this includes exchanges of information in person, by phone, text, email, letter, or any other method of private transmission. Disclosure is the act of making new or secret information known.
Of course, a spouse can choose to testify against their spouse — but they can’t be forced to do so. Enjuris tip: There is NEVER privilege when it comes to communication shared on social media. Any photos or videos shared, comments made, posts written, or other interactions online can always be used as evidence.
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 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.
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.
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.”
The media, prosecutors, and law enforcement personnel in high profile cases often engage in activities that color public opinion, not only to the detriment of the subject’s general reputation but also, in extreme cases, to the detriment of his or her ability to obtain a fair trial.
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.
The RTKL defines “privilege” as “ [t]he attorney-work product doctrine, the attorney-client privilege, the doctor-patient privilege, the speech and debate privilege or other privilege recognized by a court interpreting the laws of this Commonweal th.” 65 P.S. § 67.102.
Open records officers must be aware of these privileges to avoid accidental disclosure of protected information. In order for the attorney-client privilege to apply, an agency must demonstrate that: 1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; 2) the person to whom the communication was made is a member of the bar ...
The “work product rule” is closely related to the attorney-client privilege but is broader because it protects any material, regardless of whether it is confidential, prepared by the attorney, usually in anticipation of litigation. In Levy v.
Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6068, subd. (e), an attorney must maintain inviolate a client’s confidences. The only exception in that statute is that an attorney may, but is not required to, reveal confidential information to the extent that the attorney reasonably believes ...
And, a trustee is not a personal representative. (Prob. Code §58.) Accordingly, in situations where there is no personal representative, then there is no holder of the privilege and the attorney cannot assert the attorney-client privilege on behalf of a deceased client.
An attorney should also be aware that even when the attorney-client privilege is not terminated because there is a personal representative, the Evidence Code provides exceptions to the attorney-client privilege in several situations, primarily involving a decedent’s estate planning, which require the attorney to reveal the client’s confidential information. (See Evid. Code §§956-962.)