The attorney-client privilege protects communications primarily motivated by clients' request for legal advice, and lawyers' response. Although old and absolute, the attorney-client privilege undeniably hampers the justice system's search for truth. So the protection is narrow and fragile.
In IQL-Riggig, LLC v. Kingsbridge Technologies, the court dealt with tax-related communications between Nelson Mullins law firm lawyers and "Meilinger, an accounting firm [hired] to prepare and file [plaintiff]'s tax returns." No. 19 CV 6155, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58939, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2021). After noting that "tax preparation services are accounting services, [so] communications relating to those services are not protected under the attorney-client privilege," the court held that even "emails between Nelson Mullins attorneys regarding work performed by Meilinger" were not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Id. at *5, *6-7. The court explained that "[c]ommunications between attorneys at the same firm may qualify for the attorney-client privilege only if they reflect privileged information relating to communications to or from the client." Id. at *7. The court bluntly criticized Meilinger for arguing that such internal law firm communication did not waive privilege protection – noting that "without showing that the privilege applies, focusing on waiver amounts to putting the cart before the horse." Id. at *8.
This proper analysis might surprise some lawyers. Several courts go even further, declining to extend privilege protection even to lawyers' communications to their clients – unless those communications reflect (and in some courts unless they contain) confidences those clients conveyed to their lawyers primarily for the purposes of seeking legal advice.
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.
