United States: New York Appellate Division Strongly Supports In-House Law Firm Privilege Claim

Peter Jarvis is a Partner in Holland & Knight's Portland office

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • The First Judicial Department of the New York Appellate Division has upheld a claim of attorney-client privilege for documents reflecting communications between attorneys at a firm and that firm's in-house counsel.
  • The New York ruling adds to a string of recent decisions in other jurisdictions that have upheld the application of attorney-client privilege for communications between lawyers at a firm and their in-house counsel.
  • The strength of the opinion should make it easier for courts in states that have not yet addressed the issue to reach the same conclusion.

In Stock v. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, 2016 WL 3556655 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016), the First Judicial Department of the New York Appellate Division upheld, in a case involving a former law firm client seeking to sue the firm, a claim of attorney-client privilege for documents reflecting communications between attorneys at the firm and that firm's in-house counsel. It was the first such appellate-level decision within the New York State judicial system. New York, therefore, joins a string of recent judicial decisions in other jurisdictions that uphold the application of attorney-client privilege for communications between lawyers at a firm and their in-house counsel. The strength of the opinion should also make it easier for courts in states that have not yet addressed the issue to reach the same conclusion.

ANALYSIS

Facts

This case arose from the prior representation by Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis (the Firm) of plaintiff Kenneth Stock in the negotiation of a separation agreement from Stock's former employer. Subsequent to the completion of those negotiations, Stock also hired the Firm to represent him in federal litigation and an arbitration with his former employer to obtain certain rights that he believed were due him under the agreement.

The former employer took the position that Stock's woes were substantially caused by the Firm's representation of Stock in negotiating the separation agreement. When the former employer gave notice that it would call a Firm lawyer who had actively participated in the negotiations as a fact witness at the arbitration, several Firm lawyers consulted with the Firm's general counsel about the Firm's potential duties under New York Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 3.7, the state's attorney-witness rule. The Firm's in-house general counsel had never performed any work for Stock, and none of the time pertaining to these consultations was billed to Stock.

The arbitration ended in the former employer's favor, and the federal lawsuit brought by Stock was shortly dismissed thereafter. Stock then sued the Firm for malpractice and, in so doing, sought access to the in-house communications referenced above. Although the trial court had ordered that the documents be produced, the Appellate Division reversed and held that the documents were protected by the Firm's attorney-client privilege.

The Fiduciary Exception

The Appellate Division first noted that there was no universal a priori reason why law firms could not claim attorney-client privilege for communications with in-house counsel in the same general manner that business corporations do. The Appellate Division therefore agreed with Stock that the question before it was not whether in-house communications could be subject to attorney-client privilege at all but whether an exception to the attorney-client privilege applied on these facts.

The Appellate Division then noted that prior New York authority, like the authority in many but not all United States jurisdictions, supports what is called a "fiduciary exception" to attorney-client privilege. Under New York's version of the fiduciary exception, attorney-client privilege cannot be invoked for communications between a fiduciary and someone who is ostensibly the fiduciary's lawyer if the "real client" for purposes of the communications is a beneficiary of the fiduciary relationship rather than the fiduciary as an individual. The Appellate Division had no difficulty finding that in this instance, the "real client" of the discussions with the Firm's in-house counsel was the Firm (and its lawyers) and not Stock, the underlying client.

The Appellate Division also noted that its decision that the Firm or its lawyers were the real client was not affected by the fact that, at the time of the consultations with Firm in-house counsel, the relationship between Stock and the Firm had not yet reached the stage of actual hostility. The Appellate Division noted that much of the benefit of attorney-client relationships would be lost if the privilege could only be invoked when parties were actually, rather than just potentially, hostile towards each other.

The Appellate Division also rejected the assertion that privilege be considered waived if, in addition to discussing potential application of the attorney-witness rule under New York RPC 3.7, in-house counsel and Firm lawyers had discussed the potential civil malpractice liability of the Firm to Stock. The court held that this would strengthen, not weaken, the case for privilege because it would make even more clear the fact that the Firm or its lawyers were the real client.

The Current Client Exception

The Appellate Division went on to note that cases in several jurisdictions had held that attorney-client privilege could not be upheld as to communications with in-house lawyers when those communications were about a then-current firm client. After observing that there was no prior appellate authority in New York that had addressed this issue, the Appellate Division declined to create such an exception.

The Appellate Division explained that those who support the current client exemption base their support on the idea that when a lawyer at a firm consults in-house counsel about the firm's obligations to a client or about difficulties in meeting those obligations, there is necessarily a conflict of interest between lawyer and client that requires that the privilege give way. The Appellate Division disagreed.

To begin with, the Appellate Division asserted that it did not believe it appropriate to say that a conflict of interest could be said to exist merely because a jurisdiction's rules of professional conduct require them to consider their own ethical obligations in the course of deciding what they can or cannot do for a client.

The Appellate Division then went on to note that the current client exception conflates two distinct bodies of law: one regarding conflicts of interest (i.e., what lawyers can or cannot do when conflicts may arise) and one regarding the law of evidentiary and testimonial privileges (i.e., whether the conditions for privilege protection have or have not been met). In the view of the Appellate Division, these two bodies of law can and should be kept apart.

The Appellate Division then concluded that the Firm's in-house counsel did not in fact have a conflict of interest. This conclusion was based on several considerations. First, the in-house counsel had not done any work for Stock. Second, New York RPC 1.10(a), the state's general firmwide attribution-of-conflicts rule, should only be applied to representation of third parties as clients and not to a law firm's representation of itself. Third, the Appellate Division noted that attorney-client privilege unquestionably would exist if a lawyer at a firm consults outside counsel and that this result would be inconsistent with holding in-house communications in otherwise identical contexts not to be privileged.

CONCLUSION AND TAKEAWAYS

As usual, some open questions remain. The Appellate Division noted, for example, that there was no basis on the record before it for any argument that the Firm had waived privilege or was or would be asserting any kind of advice of counsel defense based in whole or in part on communications for which privilege was being claimed. In addition, the Appellate Division's repeated reference to Firm in-house counsel not having done any work for Stock should at least alert law firm general counsel to have someone else act in their stead if they are working for the client whose work is being discussed or, perhaps, have done any work on related matters for that client.

Nonetheless, the strength of the opinion – and the many other authorities and opinions cited in it – build a very strong case for the availability of attorney-client privilege for communications between the lawyers at a firm and the firm's in-house counsel.

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
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
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