Aa a general rule, clients waive the attorney–client privilege when they assert an advice-of-counsel defense and, consequently, must produce their lawyer’s advice-related communications. The waiver’s scope, however, is not as well-known. Does the waiver apply to communications with outside counsel and in-house lawyers?
The Utah federal court faced this specific question and narrowly construed the scope of waiver. The court held that a client’s advice-of-counsel defense waived the privilege over its communications with outside counsel, but that the waiver did not extend to its communications with in-house counsel. Hoopes v. Owners Ins. Co., 2018 WL 1183374 (D. Utah Mar. 6, 2018). You may read the decision here.
A Geico insured struck an 11-year-old pedestrian on Main Street in Heber City, causing severe injuries to the minor. Geico paid its insurance limits, but the minor’s mother filed breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims against her uninsured-motorist carrier when it failed to promptly settle that matter.
The UIM carrier had retained outside counsel to investigate and opine on coverage and payment issues. The carrier asserted the advice-of-counsel defense and agreed that the defense waived the privilege over its communications with outside counsel. The carrier, however, refused to produce communications between its claims adjuster and in-house lawyer.
Sword and Shield
The mother moved to compel the claims-adjuster–in-house lawyer communications, essentially arguing that waiver is a broad concept and must include all advice-related communications, including those with in-house counsel. More…
It’s no secret. Corporate trial lawyers often hold a group meeting of several employees to prepare them for upcoming depositions. The idea, of course, is one of efficiency—the lawyer may provide an overview of the case, discuss the relevance of the employees’ testimony, and give deposition instructions in one meeting rather than multiple preparation sessions.
The question may arise whether the attorney–client privilege protects these group discussions from disclosure. And here is a twist—even if the privilege protects the employees’ individual conversations with the lawyer, does it also protect conversations within the group meeting between two employees?
The court’s decision in Pallies v. The Boeing Co., 2017 WL 3895614 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 6, 2017), provides guidance. You may read it here.
In this disability-discrimination case against The Boeing Company, Boeing’s lawyer met with several Boeing employees in a group setting to prepare them for upcoming depositions. Boeing’s counsel did so “in an effort to comply with an aggressive discovery schedule” that included 8 employee depositions over 3 days. More…
Okay, it was a DC steakhouse, not a bar, and this is no joke.
Two of President Trump’s personal lawyers—Ty Cobb and John Dowd—ate lunch at BLT Steak on a recent Tuesday and discussed differing legal strategies for responding to Director Mueller’s Russian-related document requests. They dined and debated with no knowledge that New York Times reporter Ken Vogel sat at an adjacent table secretly taking notes of the lawyers’ conversation.
Photo: @kenvogel Twitter
What does this episode mean for President Trump’s potential invocation of executive privilege? What lessons can all lawyers derive from this inside-the-beltway faux pas? Let’s discuss.
“Every Washington Reporter’s Dream”
In a recent NYT article, ‘Isn’t that the Trump Lawyer?’: A Reporter’s Accidental Scoop, Vogel provided a blow-by-blow account of his encounter with the two Trump lawyers. He met a source at BLT Steak for lunch and, shortly after ordering, the restaurant seated Messrs. Dowd and Cobb at a table directly behind Vogel. More…