Website Heading

CALIFORNIA CORPORATE & SECURITIES LAW

Insurer Claims Attorney-Client Privilege Of Third Parties Prohibits Disclosure To Its Own Attorneys

At first, this case seems somewhat pedestrian – a lawyer sues her erstwhile law firm for employment discrimination.  But then things get complicated.  It turns out that the lawyer was employed by a law firm that was employed by an insurer to represent its insureds.  When the lawyer served a request for production of documents, the insurer…

Share on:

Former Executive Has No Right To Possess A-C Privileged Documents

Suppose that a corporation terminates its president and chief executive officer who then sues for breach of his employment contract.  Does the former executive officer have a right to access and use materials subject to the attorney-client privilege that were created during his tenure with the corporation?  If so, what would be the theory? In…

Share on:

Delaware Likes Garner/California Not So Much

In 1970, Richard Nixon was president, the 26th Amendment was still not part of the Constitution, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970).  In that case, Judge Godbold wrote: The attorney-client privilege still has viability for the corporate client.  The corporation is…

Share on:

Do You Want Your Lawyer To Be Horatius Or Atticus Finch?

I was profoundly disheartened by these recent remarks by SEC Commissioner Kara M. Stein: Are we treating lawyers differently from other gatekeepers, such as accountants?  I think we should carefully review the role that lawyers play in our markets, with a view towards how they can better help deter misconduct and prevent fraud. We should be…

Share on:

Federal Court Applies California Privilege Law To Delaware Corporation

Lawyers often speak of the attorney-client privilege in the singular as if there is only one privilege.  Given the multiplicity of fora in which actions may be brought, it is best to think in the plural.  There are many versions of the attorney-client privilege and the one that is applied to your case may not be the one that…

Share on:

This Interest May Be Common, But It’s Still Privileged

Section 954 of the California Evidence Code establishes a privilege “to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer”.  A “confidential communication between client and lawyer” is defined in Section 952 of the Evidence Code.  Under that statute, the presence of third persons does not result always…

Share on:

More On Asset Sales And The Attorney-Client Privilege

Last week, I dipped a toe into the difficult topic of what happens to the attorney-client privilege in merger and acquisition transactions.  In that post, I framed a definitional question – is the attorney-client privilege an asset?  If the attorney-client privilege is an asset, an agreement that purports to transfer all of a seller’s assets would…

Share on:

Is The Attorney-Client Privilege An Asset?

Suppose that a corporation decides to sell all of its assets.  Do all assets include the attorney-client privilege?  In considering this question, I think it is useful to distinguish between the documents or other media that contain the privileged communications and the right to assert the privilege.  One would expect that, unless specifically excluded, assets…

Share on:

Protecting Client Confidences “At Every Peril”

California expects a lot from attorneys when it comes to client confidences and the attorney-client privilege. Evidence Code Section 955 imposes an affirmative duty on every lawyer who received or made a communication subject to the attorney-client privilege to claim the privilege whenever she is present when the communication is sought to be disclosed and she…

Share on:

Kalisman v. Friedman – A California Analysis

A few months ago, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster issued an interesting decision involving director inspection rights and the attorney-client privilege.  Kalisman v. Friedman, 2013 Del. Ch. LEXIS 100 (April 17, 2013).  Previously, I had posted on two California cases dealing with this issue.  See When is a Director’s Inspection Right Not Absolute? and Defining The…

Share on: