You are here: / / COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ATTORNEYS IN A LAW FIRM AND THE FIRM’S IN...
,

COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ATTORNEYS IN A LAW FIRM AND THE FIRM’S IN HOUSE COUNSEL CONCERNING ETHICAL ISSUES IN A FORMER CLIENT’S CASE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE IN THE FORMER CLIENT’S MALPRACTICE ACTION.

The First Department, in an extensive full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman (which cannot be fairly summarized here), determined the communications between attorneys in a law firm and the firm’s in house counsel were protected by attorney-client privilege and were not subject to the fiduciary exception to the privilege. The communications were sought by plaintiff, a former client of the firm, who brought the instant malpractice action against the firm:

The primary issue on this appeal is whether attorneys who have sought the advice of their law firm’s in-house general counsel on their ethical obligations in representing a firm client may successfully invoke attorney-client privilege to resist the client’s demand for the disclosure of communications seeking or giving such advice. We hold that such communications are not subject to disclosure to the client under the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege … because, for purposes of the in-firm consultation on the ethical issue, the attorneys seeking the general counsel’s advice, as well as the firm itself, were the general counsel’s ” real clients'” … . Further, we decline to adopt the “current client exception,” under which a number of courts of other jurisdictions … have held a former client entitled to disclosure by a law firm of any in-firm communications relating to the client that took place while the firm was representing that client. Because we also find unavailing the former client’s remaining arguments for compelling the law firm and one of its attorneys to disclose the in-firm attorney-client communications in question, we reverse the order appealed from and deny the motion to compel. Stock v Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, 2016 NY Slip Op 05247, 1st Dept 6-30-16

 

ATTORNEYS (PRIVILEGE, COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ATTORNEYS IN A LAW FIRM AND THE FIRM’S IN HOUSE COUNSEL CONCERNING A FORMER CLIENT’S CASE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE IN THE FORMER CLIENT’S MALPRACTICE ACTION)/PRIVILEGE (ATTORNEY-CLIENT,COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ATTORNEYS IN A LAW FIRM AND THE FIRM’S IN HOUSE COUNSEL CONCERNING A FORMER CLIENT’S CASE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE IN THE FORMER CLIENT’S MALPRACTICE ACTION)/ATTONNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ATTORNEYS IN A LAW FIRM AND THE FIRM’S IN HOUSE COUNSEL CONCERNING A FORMER CLIENT’S CASE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE IN THE FORMER CLIENT’S MALPRACTICE ACTION)/FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION (ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ATTORNEYS IN A LAW FIRM AND THE FIRM’S IN HOUSE COUNSEL CONCERNING A FORMER CLIENT’S CASE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE IN THE FORMER CLIENT’S MALPRACTICE ACTION)/MALPRACTICE (ATTORNEYS, COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ATTORNEYS IN A LAW FIRM AND THE FIRM’S IN HOUSE COUNSEL CONCERNING A FORMER CLIENT’S CASE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE IN THE FORMER CLIENT’S MALPRACTICE ACTION)

You might also like
REMARKS ALLEGED TO BE DEFAMATORY REFLECTED THE RESULTS OF A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AND WERE THEREFORE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 74 (FIRST DEPT).
THE SEARCH OF A CAR AFTER DEFENDANT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CAR CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST; SUPPRESSION GRANTED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF DEFENDANT DISCARDING A WEAPON IN THE PAPERWORK RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST, AND THE DIFFERING VERSIONS OF EVENTS PRIOR TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST, RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST DEFENDANT FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON.
PLAINTIFF HAD TO USE AN A-FRAME LADDER ON TOP OF A SCAFFOLD TO REACH THE WORK AREA; THE SCAFFOLD MOVED AND PLAINTIFF FELL TO THE GROUND; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
A THEORY ASSERTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, AFTER DISCOVERY HAD ENDED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).
Pointing Finger and Saying “I’m Going to Shoot You” Did Not Support Harassment and Menacing Charges
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO REPAIR SHOWER-CURTAIN BRACKETS CREATED THE DANGEROUS WATER-ON-THE-FLOOR CONDITION WHICH CAUSED THE SLIP AND FALL; AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION CAN STILL BE A DANGEROUS CONDITION; LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
KILLING OF PLAINTIFF IN HER OFFICE WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BY THE BUILDING OWNERS OR TENANTS.

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

EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED... BROADER FLORIDA STATUTE COULD NOT PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER...