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 Oakland
Category:
State:
Multi-State
County:
Oakland
Control #:
US-000295
Format:
Word;
Rich Text
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
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.
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.
Beware of forwarding email strings and sharing attorney-client privileged communications. As the client, you hold the privilege, but if you voluntarily disclose our communications (e.g., “Our General Counsel told us…”), the privilege is waived.
Such information between a lawyer of those directly involved is confidential. For example, an e-mail to a lawyer or lawyers is protected.
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.
Beware of forwarding email strings and sharing attorney-client privileged communications. As the client, you hold the privilege, but if you voluntarily disclose our communications (e.g., “Our General Counsel told us…”), the privilege is waived.
Imminent death or harm. Your attorney can't be held to attorney-client privilege if they believe that keeping your confidence would result in death or significant physical harm to someone.
If someone listens to your lawyer's confidential communications without your consent (e.g., overhearing, illegal wiretapping), the eavesdropper is legally forbidden from divulging that personal information. That testimony will be inadmissible in court if they do so, but the eavesdropper may even face criminal charges.
Indeed, the most common way to lose the privilege is to include a third party in a meeting, call, or email where legal advice is being requested or provided – or to share privileged discussions or documents with a third party after the fact.