Blog Home

Tag: Attorney-Client Privilege

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

April 8, 2004

Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 794 (rev. granted 7/21/04)

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 794 (rev. granted 7/21/04)

Download Publication The California Supreme Court accepts a case from the Sixth District that holds that client participation in an inadvertent disclosure of an attorney-client communication waives the privilege.  Where there is an inadvertent disclosure the court may consider the content of the communication to evaluate whether the crime-fraud exception to the privilege applies. Marvell […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

April 7, 2004

Venture Law Group v. Superior Court (Singhania) (2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 96

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Venture Law Group v. Superior Court (Singhania) (2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 96

Download Publication The Sixth Appellate District holds that a successor corporation succeeds to the attorney-client privilege of a prior corporation.  Prior management cannot expressly or impliedly waive the privilege by asserting an advice of counsel defense.  Implied waiver based on this defense can only be asserted against the corporate client. Alok Singhania was one of […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

September 29, 2003

HLC Properties Limited v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 305

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on HLC Properties Limited v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 305

Download Publication The Second District decided that the attorney-client privilege passes to the legal successor of a predecessor business organization.  The Supreme Court has accepted review of this decision. Bing Crosby managed his interests in television programs, motion pictures, radio programs, and music compositions under different business forms throughout his lifetime.  The various businesses that […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

August 23, 2003

Shooker v. Superior Court (Winnick) (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 923

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on Shooker v. Superior Court (Winnick) (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 923

 Download Publication The Second District holds that a party designated as an expert witness waives the attorney-client privilege unless the designation is withdrawn prior to the disclosure of privileged communications or substantive testimony as an expert.  Douglas Shooker sued Gary Winnick over a business dispute.  Shooker designated himself as an expert witness but, prior to […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

August 2, 2001

STI Outdoor LLC v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 334

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on STI Outdoor LLC v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 334

Download Publication A necessary disclosure to a third party does not waive the attorney-client privilege. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (“LAMTA”) solicited proposals for the installation and maintenance of 10 automatic public toilets in exchange for the use of advertising space on LAMTA property.  Eller Media Company (“Eller”) evaluated the request for proposals, but […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates

May 24, 2001

McDermott, Will & Emery v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 378

Posted by: jab | Share | Comments Off on McDermott, Will & Emery v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 378

Download Publication The Second District has decided that an attorney who retained the services of counsel to advise him about representation of his own clients cannot pursue an action for legal malpractice over his client’s objections if to do so would intrude upon the attorney-client privilege.  It also decided that shareholder derivative suits for legal […]

Tags:
Categories: Legal Updates