Attorney Client Privilege With Former Employees In Massachusetts

State:
Multi-State
Control #:
US-000295
Format:
Word; 
Rich Text
Instant download

Description

This document is a complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Massachusetts, addressing issues related to attorney-client privilege with former employees. The case involves a plaintiff who alleges that the defendants, including a corporation, interfered with the attorney-client relationship and the patient-physician privilege during the plaintiff's rehabilitation process. Key features include the detailed introduction of parties involved, the assertion of claims regarding unauthorized communications, and the demands for compensatory and punitive damages based on willful misconduct. Filling instructions suggest inserting specific details such as names, dates, and addresses in designated fields. Target use cases for this form are relevant to attorneys, partners, owners, associates, paralegals, and legal assistants, particularly in situations where client confidentiality may be jeopardized by ex parte communications from employers or their agents. This complaint is crucial for those experienced in personal injury or workers' compensation law in Massachusetts.
Free preview
  • Preview Complaint For Intentional Interference With Attorney-Client Relationship
  • Preview Complaint For Intentional Interference With Attorney-Client Relationship
  • Preview Complaint For Intentional Interference With Attorney-Client Relationship
  • Preview Complaint For Intentional Interference With Attorney-Client Relationship

Form popularity

FAQ

(d) Exceptions The attorney-client privilege does not apply to the following: (1) Furtherance of Crime or Fraud. If the services of the attorney were sought or obtained to commit or to plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known was a crime or fraud; (2) Claimants Through Same Deceased Client.

The common interest or joint defense privilege is a widely used tool to shield from discovery strategic communications between separately represented parties who are united against a common adversary.

There are three primary occasions when solicitor‑client privilege may be overruled, namely when innocence at stake is engaged, the client's communications are themselves criminal, or it is necessary to protect public safety. Any piercing of privilege should be considered an "extraordinary measure."

The common-interest doctrine protects communications made between attorneys when their clients share a common legal interest. It is an exception to the general rule that privileged information shared with third parties generally waives the privilege.

The common interest privilege is “an extension of the attorney client privilege.” “It serves to protect the confidentiality of communications passing from one party to the attorney for another party where a joint defense effort or strategy has been decided upon and undertaken by the parties and their respective counsel ...

The common interest rule is commonly invoked when multiple parties face a common litigation opponent and enables their counsel to communicate to adequately prepare a defense without waiving privilege. POL. Documents shared pursuant to the common interest rule will be protected from discovery during litigation.

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.

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal confidential information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).

Trusted and secure by over 3 million people of the world’s leading companies

Attorney Client Privilege With Former Employees In Massachusetts