Attorney-Client Privilege Flashcards
Rule 501 - Basic Concept
- rule that corresponds to privilege
- essentially, common law largely controls (rule itself does not say much)
Rule 501 - Text
The common law - as interpreted by United States courts in the light of reason and experience - governs a claim of privilege unless any of the following provides otherwise:
- US Constitution
- federal statute
- rules prescribed by SCOTUS
- BUT in civil case, state law governs privilege regarding claim or defense for which state law supplies rule of decision
Elements of Attorney-Client Privilege
1) a communication,
2) made in confidence,
3) between an attorney and a client,
4) for the purpose of facilitating legal services
Attorney-Client Privilege - Communications
- not all interactions are communications (ex of client drinking at dinner then driving -> attorney would need to testify to what you saw because it’s not a communication)
- payments are not communications (can be compelled to testify how much you were paid)
Examples of Partial Communications
- client shoots someone in attorney’s presence, then says “What should I do?” - only question onwards is “communication”
- client hands attorney incriminating evidence and asks “should we hide?” -> the handing of the evidence to the attorney is not privileged, question onwards is
Attorney-Client Privilege - “Made in Confidence”
- any third-party present potentially voids out the privilege (need not be someone adverse to client)
- judged based on what a reasonable client should have expected to be confidential, not whether the communication in fact became known
U.S. v. Lawless
- client sent doc to lawyer with intent of putting it in tax return, but the doc was not put in -> client’s intent matters, so the doc is not protected by privilege
- vs. Prof noted if client had asked “I’m not sure whether to include this” the doc should still be protected
Fiduciary Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege
- related to q of who is the client
- in ordinary trustee-beneficiary relationship, the beneficiaries are entitled to know legal advice that the trustee gets for their benefit
- BUT in U.S. v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, SCOTUS held this did not apply to general trust relationship between U.S. gov and the Apache Nation (think court said this was because gov. had separate legal interest of its own on which it needed advice)
Attorney-Client Privilege - Who Qualifies as the Attorney
- if conversation with a non-lawyer happens at the direction of a lawyer, it’s privileged (ex: convo with attorney’s investigator - as long as purpose was ultimately to get legal advice from a lawyer, it applies)
Joint Representation Agreements
- used in large litigation with lots of lawyers and lots of plaintiffs or defendants - makes sure that any convo between any pl/def and any lawyer is privileged
Who counts as “client” for purposes of privileged attorney-client communications in a corporation?
SCOTUS says eval based on listed of factors:
- needs to be communication with a corporate employee and lawyer
- conversation must be at the direction of a superior
- needs to be for purpose of legal advice for the corporation (not for the individual)
- conversation must be regarding matters within employee’s duties
- employee must know what the purpose of the conversation is (only need to know speaking to get legal advice for the corporation)
*Think all these factors set out in Upjohn
Upjohn Warning
- given to employees speaking to lawyers on behalf of corporations
- the lawyer will tell the employee that the lawyer represents the corporation, not the employee + therefore the conversation is only confidential unless the corporation decides otherwise
- purpose: corporation trying to protect its interests - preserving right to throw employee under the bus, need to give warning so employee knows the lawyer is not representing them
Attorney-Client Privilege - For Purpose of Facilitating Legal Services
- core q is whether legal services needs to be the “primary purpose” (9th Circuit says yes) or “significant purpose” (D.C. Circuit says this)
- q comes up when dual purposes (ex: intersection of tax advice and legal advice re taxes)
Hughes v. Meade
- cl. asked lawyer to deliver stolen property to police - held NOT privileged because attorney was just working as a delivery service, not as the attorney
Firms and Internal Investigations
- internal investigations of law firms can be privileged, but should make sure by setting up Office of General Counsel to run internal investigations