United States: An Overview Of The Attorney Client Privilege And Common Privilege Issues

Clients depend on their lawyers to provide advice confidentially and to protect that advice from disclosure to the fullest extent permitted by law. In many instances, it is easy to determine whether a particular communication is privileged and confidential. There are other instances, however, when the scope of protection is not as clear.This uncertainty arises, in part, because applying the attorney-client privilege raises intensely fact-specific questions. As a result, courts have reached different, sometimes conflicting, decisions when determining the scope of protection provided to confidential and privileged communications.

Although this fact-intensive nature of privileges makes bright-line rules difficult, there are useful guidelines and best practices that attorneys can follow. This paper provides a brief overview of the attorney-client privilege and some of the common privilege questions that arise for in-house and transactional attorneys.

I. Overview of Attorney-Client Privilege1

The attorney-client privilege protects communications between a client and his attorney in two key ways: (1) by prohibiting the attorney from disclosing the communications, and (2) by protecting the client from being compelled to disclose the communication in legal proceedings. In Texas, the privilege is governed by Rule of Evidence 503. The Rule provides that "[a] client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client."2 The basic elements of the attorney-client privilege are:

  • a communication;
  • made between privileged persons (i.e., attorney, client or agent);
  • in confidence; and
  • for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance for the client.3

The purpose of the privilege is the promotion of unrestrained communication and contact between the lawyer and client in matters in which the attorney's professional judgment is sought.4 The attorney-client privilege has developed from two assumptions: (1) good legal assistance requires full disclosure of a client's legal problems, and (2) a client will reveal details required for proper representation only if his confidences are protected.5 But because the privilege can prevent a judge and jury from learning of otherwise relevant and admissible evidence, courts construe the privilege narrowly.6There are two fundamental aspects of the attorney-client privilege, both of which must be met in order for the privilege to apply. The first is that the communication must have been made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, rather than business or other advice.7 The second is that there must be an expectation that the communication will not be disclosed.8 If either of these fundamental aspects is missing, the attorney-client communication is not privileged.

II. When a Lawyer Wears Two Hats: The Special Role of In-House Counsel.

The attorney-client privilege applies to all attorneys, whether they work "in-house" or outside of an organization.9 However, in-house attorneys often fill multiple roles in an organization, and those roles may require that they give legal advice, business advice, or both. Because communications are protected only when an attorney is acting in a legal capacity,10 whether a communication with an in-house attorney meets all of the requirements of the attorney-client privilege is not always straight-forward. Both inhouse attorneys and their clients must be careful not to assume that communications are privileged simply because they were made to someone in the legal department, or because an attorney was present when they were made.11 In addition, communications made for business rather than legal purposes are not protected by the privilege.12 In order to be privileged, a communication must satisfy two requirements: (1) the in-house counsel must have been acting in his role as an attorney; and (2) the advice given must be legal, not business, advice. Courts will look carefully at a case to make sure that an organization did not assign an in-house attorney to a project merely so that privilege might be asserted over otherwise non-privileged communications.

III. Who Is the Client?

As stated above, a communication is privileged only if it is between an attorney and his client (or his client's agent). Accordingly, both in-house counsel and outside counsel should always be mindful of who is the client. Texas Rule of Evidence 503 defines a "client" as "a person, public officer, or corporation, association, or [any] other organization or entity, either public or private, who is rendered professional legal services by a lawyer, or who consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional legal services from the lawyer."13 When representing an individual, identifying the client is typically easy. However, when the client is an entity, the question can be more difficult to answer.

While corporations and other entities can only speak or act through their officers,directors, or employees, it is important to understand that some communications between an entity's employee and the entity's counsel may not be privileged. The starting point for determining which person can have privileged communications on behalf of a corporation is the United States Supreme Court's decision in Upjohn Co. v. United States.14 Prior to Upjohn, federal courts employed the "control group" test to determine whether the attorney-client privilege applied in the corporate context.15 Under the control group test, the communications of an employee to the corporation's lawyer are privileged only if the employee "is in a position to control or even to take a substantial part in a decision about any action which the corporation may take upon the advice of the attorney. . . ."16 In Upjohn, however, the Supreme Court modified the analysis to include thebroader "subject matter" test. The subject matter test contains three major components: (1) the person making the communication to the attorney must have been an employee of the corporation at the time of the communication;17 (2) the communication was made at the direction of a corporate superior in order to secure legal advice from counsel;18 and (3) the communication was within the scope of the employee's corporate duties. 19 Now most courts, including Texas state courts, apply the broader subject matter test.

IV. When the Client Is an Entity, the Privilege Belongs to the Entity.

When the client is an entity, the privilege belongs to the entity, not to the individualemployees who participated in the communication.20 As the Supreme Court explained in Upjohn, this distinction is an important one, especially in situations where the entity and its employee later become adverse or have different views on whether to waive privilege over a communication. If a company's employee confides in the company's lawyer under the mistaken belief that the lawyer is actually representing the employee, the company runs the risk of having a court suppress the employee's communications from evidence.21 And in circumstances where the client and company later become adverse in litigation, a court may find that the company's lawyers should be disqualified for having a conflict of interest. Accordingly, corporate counsel should take steps to avoid the situation where an employee confides in his company's counsel on the incorrect assumption that the employee controls the privilege. To avoid that situation, counsel should provide an "Upjohn warning" to employees when taking statements from those employees in connection with a representation of the company. The central purpose of an Upjohn warning is to ensure that the employee understands that the lawyer represents the corporation, not the employee. In giving the warning the lawyer should take care to ensure that the employee understands the following:

  • That the attorney represents the corporation, not the employee;
  • That the communication with the attorney is covered by the attorney-client privilege, but the privilege belongs to the company, not to the employee; and
  • That the company may decide to waive the privilege and disclose the information from the individual employee to third parties, including the government. 22

The cautious corporate counsel will give this warning before soliciting statements from a company's employee and make a written record of the warning. United States v. Nicholas demonstrates the importance of providing an adequate Upjohn warning and of making a written record of it. In Nicholas, the United States District Court for the Central District of California suppressed evidence in a criminal trial in part because there was not sufficient evidence that an Upjohn warning had been given.23 The employee testified that he did not remember receiving a warning. Even though the company's lawyers testified that they had disclosed to the employee that they represented the company, the court held that the lawyers' testimony was not sufficient in the absence of a contemporaneous written record. Furthermore, the court held that even if the alleged disclosure had beengiven, it was inadequate because the lawyers never explained that they were not the employee's lawyers, that the employee should consult with an attorney, or that any statements made by the employee could be shared with third parties.24

V. Common Attorney-Client Privilege Questions

While any form of private communication can be privileged, privilege questions most frequently arise for in-house attorneys in the context of notes, drafts, and email communications. This section discusses common issues to consider when determining whether such communications are privileged. Note that this article focuses only on the attorney-client privilege, and that the attorney work-product doctrine and other privileges may provide broader protection over such communications when they are applicable.

A. Are an Attorney's Notes Privileged?

Whether an attorney's notes are privileged depends on the purpose of the notes and the people present for the communication. Generally, an attorney's notes will be privileged if (1) they were taken for the purposes of providing legal advice; and (2) only the client was present.25 For example, notes taken during a meeting with the client to discuss the terms of the agreement are privileged if the primary purpose of the discussion is to provide legal advice.26 On the other hand, handwritten notes and memos to the file are privileged only if they reflect privileged communications with the client; such notes and memos typically will not be privileged if counsel's thoughts are not actually communicated to the client.27

B. Are the Client's Notes of Communications Privileged?

Whether the client's notes of communications with his attorney are privileged depends on the purpose of the notes and the people present during the communication. In order to be privileged, the notes must reflect communications either (1) with counsel for the purpose of receiving legal advice; or (2) with the client for the primary purpose of receiving legal advice.28 For example, notes of communications with an internal team that are not related to legal advice are not privileged.29 Notes of communications that involve third parties such as opposing parties, outside consultants, etc., are generally not privileged.30 However, the Delaware Chancery Court recently observed that the presence of an investment banker when a client and its attorneys discussed legal matters did not destroy the privilege.31

C. Are Emails Between Client and Counsel Privileged?

An email between a client and his attorney is privileged if only the lawyer and the client are on the email and it was made for the purpose of providing legal advice. An email between a client and counsel is not privileged if anyone besides the lawyer or client is on the email, such as investment bankers, accountants, etc. The email will also not be privileged if the email is not made for the purpose of receiving legal advice. For example, if clients are merely copying the lawyer on internal discussions of business terms, the email will not be privileged.

D. Are Drafts of Agreements/Documents Privileged?

A draft of an agreement or document is privileged if the draft is created by or for attorneys and it is shared only between the attorney and the client.32 Such a draft is not privileged if the draft is made by business people and relates to business terms or the draft is shared with someone outside the confidential relationship.33

VI. Conclusion

The attorney-client privilege is critical to protecting a lawyer's legal advice. Clients depend on their lawyers to protect that advice. In determining whether a particular communication or information is protected, the facts matter. There are some basics to protecting information that every lawyer needs to know. However, there will be times when it is unclear whether information is protected. In all cases, lawyers should take steps at the time advice is given to make it more likely that the information will fall within the boundaries set by the rules and case law.

Footnotes

1 This article focuses on the attorney-client privilege, but it is important to note that the work product doctrine may also apply depending on the factual situation, particularly where the client is involved with or in reasonable anticipation of litigation at the time of the communication.

2 TEX. R. EVID. 503(b)(1).

3 RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS § 68 (2000).

4 Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920, 921 (Tex. 1996); West v. Solito, 563 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex. 1978).

5 Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976).

6 See id.

7 S.E.C v. Brady, 238 F.R.D. 429, 438-39 (N.D. Tex. 2006).

8 Id.

9 See In re LTV Sec. Litig., 89 F.R.D. 595, 601 (N.D. Tex. 1981) (in-house counsel were to be treated no differently than outside counsel for purposes of determining applicability of attorney-client privilege).

10 See TEX. R. EVID. 503(b); In re Small 346 S.W.3d 657, 663 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009, no pet.) ("The attorney-client privilege applies only to communications which are intended to be confidential between the attorney and the client and which are made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal services for the client").

11 Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Valdez, 863 S.W.2d 458, 460 (Tex. 1993) (holding "a party may not cloak a document with the attorney-client privilege simply by forwarding it to his or her attorney").

12 See United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028, 1044 (5th Cir. 1981) (finding no privilege where attorney did not act in a legal capacity by preparing tax returns).

13 TEX. R. EVID. 503(a)(1).

14 449 U.S. 383.

15 Id. at 390.

16 Id. (citing Philadelphia v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 210 F. Supp. 483, 485 (E.D. Pa. 1962), petition formandamus and prohibition denied sub. nom.)

17 Id. at 394.

18 Id.

19 Id.

20 See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. Title 2, Subt. G, App. A, Art. 10, § 9, Rule 1.12 (Vernon 2005 & Supp.2011) (providing "[a] lawyer retained or employed by an organization represents the entity"); In re MktgInvestors Corp., 80 S.W.3d 44 (Tex. App.—1998, no pet.) (recognizing that the attorney-client privilege belongs to the corporation).

21 See > 606 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1112 (C.D. Cal.), rev'd on other grounds, United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600 (9th Cir. 2009). The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's suppression of the evidence because it found that the communications were not privileged because they were not made by the employee "in confidence" but were made for the purpose of disclosure to outside auditors. Nicholas, 583 F.3d at 609.

22 See United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 608 n.7 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining Upjohn warnings make clear that the corporate lawyers do not represent the individual employee and that anything said by the employee to the lawyers will be protected by the company's attorney-client privilege subject to waiver of the privilege in the sole discretion of the company).

23 Nicholas, 606 F. Supp. 2d at 1116.

24 Id.

25 See Neuder v. Battelle Pac. Nw. Nat'l Lab, 194 F.R.D. 289, 293 (D.D.C. 2000) (providing the mere fact that clients are at a meeting with counsel in which legal advice is requested or received does not mean that everything said at the meeting is privileged; for communications at such meetings to be privileged, they must relate to the acquisition or rendition of legal services).

26 See id.

27 See Kelly v. Gaines, 181 S.W.3d 394, 419 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005), reversed on other grounds, 235 S.W.3d 179, (finding a "memo to file" was not privileged because it did not contain or refer to any communications between the party claiming privilege and his attorneys and the attorneys were not acting in their legal capacity).

28 See Johnson v. Sea-Land Servs. Inc., No. 99 CIV9161WHPTHK, 2001 WL 897185, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2001) (stating, "[t]he attorney-client privilege affords confidentiality to communications among clients, their attorneys, and the agents of both, for the purpose of seeking and rendering an opinion on law or legal services, or assistance in some legal proceeding, so long as the communications were intended to be, and were in fact, kept confidential").

29 See Larson v. Harrington, 11 F. Supp. 2d 1198, 1203 (E.D. Cal. 1998) (holding notes made on the client's initiative were not privileged).

30 See In re JDN Real Estate-McKinney L.P., 211 S.W.3d 907, 922 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied) (stating "[t]he presence of a third person eliminates the intent for confidentiality on which the privilege rests).

31 3Com Corp. v. Diamond II Holdings, Inc., No. 3933-VCN, 2010 WL 2280734, at *6 (Del. Ch. May 31,2010).

32 See In re Monsanto Co., 998 S.W.2d 917, 931 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, pet. denied) (finding draft agreement not privileged because it was disclosed to third parties).

33 See Montgomery v. Leftwich, Moore & Douglas, 161 F.R.D. 224, 227 (D.D.C. 1995) (holding attorney's drafting of business rather than legal documents not privileged).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions