In this complaint, plaintiff charges defendants with intentional interference with the attorney/client relationship. The plaintiff states that the actions of the defendants in interfering with the attorney/client relationship were willful, wanton, malicious and obtrusive and that punitive damages should be accessed against the defendants.
Attorney Client Privilege With Former Employees In Alameda
Category:
State:
Multi-State
County:
Alameda
Control #:
US-000295
Format:
Word;
Rich Text
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
Commercial litigators are very familiar with the age-old client question: “Can the opposing party contact my former employee directly?” While there are several strategy considerations at play, the short answer in most jurisdictions is yes.
No. It is a Conflict of Interest and violates the Rules of Professional Conduct. You should object to the attorney/firm. If they do not withdraw, file an objection with the court and request to have them removed from the case.
There are two major exceptions to the lawyer-client privilege under the California Evidence Code, as discussed below. 2.1. Crime or fraud. 2.2. Preventing death or substantial physical harm.
It is a common practice for outside litigation counsel to represent current, and even former, employees of corporate clients during depositions. This practice, however, is governed by ethical rules (and opinions and case law) that must be considered in advance.
Thus, a lawyer related to another lawyer, e.g., as parent, child, sibling or spouse, ordinarily may not represent a client in a matter where that lawyer is representing another party, unless each client gives informed consent.
Unethical attorneys may breach attorney-client privilege for their own gain. If they have the chance to profit from your information or your case presents a conflict of interest for them, unbeknownst to you, they may intentionally divulge privileged information to benefit or protect themselves.
The United States Supreme Court rejected the control group test in Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981). Most courts now apply the Supreme Court's reasoning in that case to corporate privilege claims, including those involving former employees.
Employers Can File Many Kinds of Lawsuits Against Employees for Breach of Contract. In some circumstances, a relationship between an employee and employer is based on a contract. If an employment contract was the basis of the relationship between you and your employee, you can sue them for breaching the contract terms.
The so-called Upjohn warning takes its name from the seminal Supreme Court case Upjohn Co. v. United States,1 in which the court held that communications between company counsel and employees of the company are privileged, but the privilege is owned by the company and not the individual employee.