Insurer Claims Attorney-Client Privilege Of Third Parties Prohibits Disclosure To Its Own Attorneys

At first, this case seems somewhat pedestrian – a lawyer sues her erstwhile law firm for employment discrimination.  But then things get complicated.  It turns out that the lawyer was employed by a law firm that was employed by an insurer to represent its insureds.  When the lawyer served a request for production of documents the insurer objected on the basis of the attorney-client privilege.  If you’ve been paying attention so far, you might have a few questions.  For example, what basis does an insurance company have for invoking the attorney-client privilege?  After all, the insurance company isn’t a lawyer or even a client of the plaintiff (who is a lawyer)?  You might be even more puzzled if I told you that the lawyer didn’t challenge the insurer’s right to claim the privilege.  It seems that everyone assumed that the insurer had the right.

As a result, the Court of Appeal decided to tackle a different and arguably narrow question: whether allegedly privileged or confidential material may be disclosed by the parties to their respective attorneys.  You might want to read that sentence again.  The question is whether the privilege prevents parties from disclosing privileged information to their own attorneys.  In Chubb & Son v. Superior Court, 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 728 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014), the Fifth District Court of Appeal said no, stating:

The disclosure of the confidences to the parties’ attorneys equips them to protect those confidences and to present any dispute to the court.  And indeed, it can fairly be said that nonparty clients have less to worry about than clients who are actually parties to the litigation, since there is no apparent likelihood that the confidences will be used against them in the litigation. Based on the record before us, there is no reason to preclude disclosure to the parties’ attorneys merely because the confidences belong to nonparties.

Footnote omitted.

Overlooking the fact that the insurer is not a lawyer, I’m troubled by the result.  I’m sure that these clients would be troubled and surprised to learn that confidential communications with their legal counsel is being disclosed to other lawyers who do not represent them and have no direct ethical or statutory obligations to them.


Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.