You are here: / / APPELLATE DIVISION WRONGLY EXTENDED COMMON INTEREST ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE ...
, ,

APPELLATE DIVISION WRONGLY EXTENDED COMMON INTEREST ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO MERGER NEGOTIATIONS WHEN THERE WAS NO PENDING LITIGATION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the common interest attorney-client privilege should only apply when there is litigation or pending litigation involving the parties with a common interest. The 1st Department had extended to privilege to merger negotiations between Countrywide and Bank of America at a time when the failure of mortgage-backed securities was in the air but there was no litigation or pending litigation:

Disclosure is privileged between codefendants, coplaintiffs or persons who reasonably anticipate that they will become colitigants, because such disclosures are deemed necessary to mount a common claim or defense, at a time when parties are most likely to expect discovery requests and their legal interests are sufficiently aligned that “the counsel of each [i]s in effect the counsel of all” … . When two or more parties are engaged in or reasonably anticipate litigation in which they share a common legal interest, the threat of mandatory disclosure may chill the parties’ exchange of privileged information and therefore thwart any desire to coordinate legal strategy. In that situation, the common interest doctrine promotes candor that may otherwise have been inhibited.

The same cannot be said of clients who share a common legal interest in a commercial transaction or other common problem but do not reasonably anticipate litigation. Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 04439, CtApp 6-9-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE, APPELLATE DIVISION WRONGLY EXTENDED COMMON INTEREST ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO MERGER NEGOTIATIONS WHEN THERE WAS NO PENDING LITIGATION)/ATTORNEYS (ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE, APPELLATE DIVISION WRONGLY EXTENDED COMMON INTEREST ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO MERGER NEGOTIATIONS WHEN THERE WAS NO PENDING LITIGATION)/PRIVILEGE (ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE, APPELLATE DIVISION WRONGLY EXTENDED COMMON INTEREST ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO MERGER NEGOTIATIONS WHEN THERE WAS NO PENDING LITIGATION)/COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE, APPELLATE DIVISION WRONGLY EXTENDED COMMON INTEREST ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO MERGER NEGOTIATIONS WHEN THERE WAS NO PENDING LITIGATION)

You might also like
BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP).
THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HAD REVERSED DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION, STATING IT WAS REVERSING ON WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR THE SAME REASONS IT WAS REVERSING ON LEGAL SUFFICIENCY GROUNDS; THAT CONSTITUTED AN ERROR OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THERE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR PROPER ASSESSMENT OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP).
DEFENDANT, A NONCITIZEN, WAS TOLD DURING HIS PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL ON THE DEPORTATION-ELIGIBLE B MISDEMEANOR; WHILE THE LEAVE APPLICATION WAS PENDING THE LAW WAS CHANGED TO AFFORD A PERSON IN DEFENDANT’S POSITION THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL; THE MAJORITY UPHELD THE GUILTY PLEA; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE PLEA SHOULD NOT STAND (CT APP).
UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR STANDARD, HEARSAY STATEMENTS ADMITTED IN THIS ATTEMPTED MURDER AND FIRST DEGREE ASSAULT TRIAL CONSTITUTED HARMLESS ERROR, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (CT APP).
School Employee Stated Discrimination Cause of Action City Department of Education
​ AN AMENDED REGULATION DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF LIFE-INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CONSUMERS IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS AND WAS PROPERLY CRAFTED AND ISSUED BY THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES (CT APP).
NOT ADMINISTERING THE DWI COORDINATION TESTS TO DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF A LANGUAGE BARRIER DID NOT VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS.
Defendant’s Having Unprotected Sex with Partner After Defendant’s HIV-Positive Diagnosis Did Not Constitute “Depraved Indifference”

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LIFE ESTATES IN A CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE APARTMENT DID NOT DIMINISH VALUE... MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; DEFENDANT DID...