In this complaint, plaintiff charges defendants with intentional interference with the attorney/client relationship. The plaintiff states that the actions of the defendants in interfering with the attorney/client relationship were willful, wanton, malicious and obtrusive and that punitive damages should be accessed against the defendants.
Attorney Client Privilege With Former Employees In Georgia
Category:
State:
Multi-State
Control #:
US-000295
Format:
Word;
Rich Text
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
The protections of the attorney-client privilege survive indefinitely. This means that the protections remain in place even when the attorney-client relationship ends, no matter if the relationship ends due to voluntary termination or due to the death of one of the parties.
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.
A waiver can occur from a variety of conduct that fails to maintain the confidentiality of the communication. Either voluntary or inadvertent disclosure to outside or non-covered recipients, professional advisors outside the privilege, and experts and consultants, can result in waiver as a matter of law.
Crime or Fraud Exception. If a client seeks advice from an attorney to assist with the furtherance of a crime or fraud or the post-commission concealment of the crime or fraud, then the communication is not privileged.
The lawyer-client privilege protects your communications even after the attorney-client relationship ends. Even if you fire your attorney or they terminate the relationship for not paying their fees, they still cannot reveal anything you told them in confidence.
Imminent death or harm. Your attorney can't be held to attorney-client privilege if they believe that keeping your confidence would result in death or significant physical harm to someone.
It is a common practice for outside litigation counsel to represent current, and even former, employees of corporate clients during depositions. This practice, however, is governed by ethical rules (and opinions and case law) that must be considered in advance.
The United States Supreme Court rejected the control group test in Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981). Most courts now apply the Supreme Court's reasoning in that case to corporate privilege claims, including those involving former employees.
There are two major exceptions to the lawyer-client privilege under the California Evidence Code, as discussed below. 2.1. Crime or fraud. 2.2. Preventing death or substantial physical harm.
Crime or Fraud Exception. If a client seeks advice from an attorney to assist with the furtherance of a crime or fraud or the post-commission concealment of the crime or fraud, then the communication is not privileged.