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.
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.
Rule 3: Label the top of the communication or the subject line of an email: "Privileged and Confidential: Attorney-Client Privileged Communication." This notice should be prominent and easily viewable as soon as someone receives the communication.
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.
Crime or Fraud Exception. If a client seeks advice from an attorney to assist with the furtherance of a crime or fraud or the post-commission concealment of the crime or fraud, then the communication is not privileged.
The attorney-client privilege does not apply to every communication with an attorney. For the privilege to exist, the communication must be to, from, or with an attorney, and intended to be confidential. In addition, the communication must be for the purpose of requesting or receiving legal advice.
The attorney-client privilege maintains the confidentiality of certain communications, made between attorneys and their clients, for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice. The privilege protects communications made orally or in writing, in person or over the telephone, in letters or in emails.
It is good practice to label confidential communications as “Confidential: Attorney-Client Privileged,” to maintain them in a secure place, and to consult with counsel before disclosing them to anyone, even internally. They must be between an attorney and a client.