Blog Home

Tag: Attorney-Client Privilege

June 5, 2017

County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1264 rev. den. (Oct. 11, 2017)

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1264 rev. den. (Oct. 11, 2017)

Download Publication The Second District, on remand from the California Supreme Court, holds a government entity need not disclose any invoices in pending litigation under the Public Records Act.  Disclosures in closed matters required under the act are limited to fee totals, if a trial court concludes it would not reveal litigation strategy.  A trial […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

April 18, 2017

McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1083

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1083

Download Publication The Fourth District holds an inadvertent disclosure of an attorney-client communication to a third party is not a knowing waiver.  An attorney who improperly uses inadvertently disclosed attorney-client communications can be disqualified. McDermott, Will & Emery LLP (McDermott) attorney Jonathan Lurie provided estate planning services for Marilyn and Dick Hausman. Dick managed Marilyn’s […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

March 14, 2017

Behunin v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 833, rev. den.(Jun. 14, 2017)

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Behunin v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 833, rev. den.(Jun. 14, 2017)

Download Publication The Second District holds there is no privilege when attorney-client communications are disclosed to a public relations consultant who was neither necessary for the communications between the attorney and client, nor necessary to further the interests of the client.  Nicholas Behunin, represented by Leonard Steiner and Steiner & Libo, sued Charles and Michael […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

February 17, 2017

People v. Delgado (2017) 2 Cal.5th 544

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on People v. Delgado (2017) 2 Cal.5th 544

Download Publication The Supreme Court holds the presence of correctional officers to protect an attorney representing a violent criminal defendant does not deprive the accused of the effective assistance of counsel by violating the confidentiality of attorney client communications.  Inmate Anthony Delgado was serving a life sentence under California’s Three Strikes law when he murdered […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

December 29, 2016

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (ACLU of Southern California) 16 C.D.O.S. 13548

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (ACLU of Southern California) 16 C.D.O.S. 13548

Download Publication The Supreme Court, in a four to three decision, holds whether an attorney client communication is privileged depends on whether the communication bears some relationship to the attorney’s legal services.  Invoices, transmitted to allow an attorney to collect a fee, may contain unprivileged information subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act, which […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

September 17, 2016

Suarez v. Trigg Laboratories (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 118

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Suarez v. Trigg Laboratories (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 118

Download Publication The Second District holds claims of concealment under the guise of attorney-client privilege are protected petitioning activity under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute. Rafael Suarez consulted with Trigg Laboratories and its owner Michael Trygstad to increase company profit and growth, prepare Trigg for an eventual sale, and raise capital under an oral agreement. After Suarez […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates

June 8, 2016

City of Petaluma v. Sup. Ct. (Waters) (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 1023

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on City of Petaluma v. Sup. Ct. (Waters) (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 1023

Download Publication The First District holds an attorney’s factual investigation conducted on behalf of a client is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, regardless of whether the attorney rendered legal advice. Andrea Waters was the first firefighter and paramedic for the City of Petaluma (City).  Claiming harassment, discrimination and retaliation, she […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates

April 16, 2016

DP Pham, LLC v. Cheadle (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 653

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on DP Pham, LLC v. Cheadle (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 653

Download Publication The Fourth District holds a court may not conduct an in camera review of attorney-client communications once the holder of the privilege makes a prima facie showing of privilege.   Robert Obarr worked closely with his assistant, Christi Torres Galla, and was represented by Attorney Kimes in a variety of matters. Obarr sold a […]

Tags: , ,
Categories: Legal Updates

March 17, 2016

Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1176

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1176

Download Publication The Supreme Court holds inadvertent disclosure of attorney-client privileged and work product protected documents pursuant to a Public Records Act request does not constitute waiver, and the claw back rules of inadvertently disclosed documents apply. Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against Defendant City challenging the validity of a certain tax and seeking […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates

January 30, 2015

Anten v. Superior Court (Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin) (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1254

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Anten v. Superior Court (Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin) (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1254

Download Publication The Second District holds one joint client cannot prevent discovery or the introduction of privileged communications created during a joint client representation. Anten and the Rubins jointly retained attorneys at the Weintraub Tobin firm concerning their prior counsel’s tax advice. Weintraub opined the prior lawyers’ error precluded the clients from seeking favorable tax […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates