Blog Home

Tag: Attorney-Client Privilege

June 2, 2011

Clark v. Superior Court (Verisign) (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 37

Posted by: Long & Levit | Share | Comments Off on Clark v. Superior Court (Verisign) (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 37

Download Publication The Fourth District affirms the trial court’s disqualification of counsel for reviewing and failing to immediately return attorney-client privileged documents. Grant Clark, represented by Higgs, Fletcher & Mack LLP (“Higgs”), sued VeriSign, Inc. for wrongful termination.  The trial court disqualified Higgs after it found the firm had received and excessively reviewed privileged documents.  […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates

May 23, 2011

Reilly v. Greenwald & Hoffman, LLP (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 891

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Reilly v. Greenwald & Hoffman, LLP (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 891

Download Publication The Fourth District holds that an attorney must be dismissed on demurrer from a shareholder derivative suit where there is no indication that the corporation has waived the privilege and thus the attorney is unable to reveal attorney-client communications in his defense.  Minority shareholder Mark S.  Reilly filed a shareholder derivative action against […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

January 14, 2011

Holmes v. Petrovich Development Co. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1047

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Holmes v. Petrovich Development Co. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1047

Download Publication The Third District holds that attorney-client communications transmitted from an employer’s computer are not privileged. Shortly after Gina Holmes began working for Paul Petrovich as his executive assistant, she announced her pregnancy.  After an e-mail exchange about the issues with her employer, she used her company e-mail account to communicate with her counsel […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

September 3, 2010

Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 189

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 189

Download Publication The Fourth District holds that attorneys who participate in fraudulent misrepresentations violate an independent duty and may be held liable for conspiracy with their client.  A shareholder derivative action may be precluded by the attorney-client privilege, but courts need to carefully examine questions of waiver and should not dismiss an action when it […]

Tags: , , ,
Categories: Legal Updates

May 12, 2010

Hernandez v. Tanninen et al., (2010 9th Cir.) 604 F.3d 1095

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Hernandez v. Tanninen et al., (2010 9th Cir.) 604 F.3d 1095

Download Publication The Ninth Circuit holds that a claim dependent upon attorney-client or work product information constitutes an implied waiver as to all communications on the specific topic of the claim, but not a blanket waiver as to all attorney-client or work product privileged information. Rolando Hernandez filed suit against the City of Vancouver and […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates

November 30, 2009

Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725

Download Publication The Supreme Court holds a trial court may not review an attorney-client communication in camera to determine privilege.  Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco), retained Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP to provide wage and hour legal advice.  The Sheppard attorney held confidential communications with managers, and reduced her opinion to writing. Employees in later […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

September 17, 2009

Deitz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 771

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Deitz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 771

Download Publication The Fourth District holds that an attorney cannot hide behind the shield of attorney-client privilege in seeking to avoid liability to pay a referral fee, when the client has waived the attorney-client privilege sufficiently to allow the attorney to defend the claim.  William Dietz alleged that Meisenheimer & Herron and Meisenheimer, Herron & […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates

June 9, 2005

Barton v. United States District Court for the Central District of California (2005) 410 F.3d 1104

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Barton v. United States District Court for the Central District of California (2005) 410 F.3d 1104

Download Publication The Ninth Circuit holds that a law firm’s internet questionnaire for prospective clients is protected by the attorney-client privilege despite the law firm’s disclaimer advising individuals that they are not forming an attorney-client relationship. Plaintiffs who sued Smith-Kline Beecham Corp.  claiming injuries from the antidepressant drug Paxil had initially contacted their law firm […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

April 11, 2005

People v. Urbano (2005) 128 Cal. App.4th 396

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on People v. Urbano (2005) 128 Cal. App.4th 396

Download Publication The Fifth District holds that a client’s comment and gesture made to his attorney in the presence of others while court was not in session is not protected by the attorney-client privilege. After a jury found Raymond Urbano guilty of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, he argued that the […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

December 15, 2004

Laguna Beach County Water District v. Superior Court (Woodhouse) (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1453

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Laguna Beach County Water District v. Superior Court (Woodhouse) (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1453

Download Publication The Fourth District holds that an affirmative defense concerning an attorney’s investigation prior to a construction project does not waive the attorney-client privilege as to investigations that occur after the construction project is complete.  Further, the work product protection is not waived when an attorney responds to audit inquiries providing information about pending […]

Tags: ,
Categories: Legal Updates