Tagged: Attorney-Client Privilege

Sharing Communication with Public Relations Firm Destroys Privilege

Sharing Communication with Public Relations Firm Destroys Privilege

The Southern District of New York recently held that sharing attorney-client privileged communications with a public relations firm destroys that privilege. Universal Standard brought a trademark infringement and unfair competition suit against Target. During the course of discovery, documents were produced consisting of emails between Universal Standard, its outside counsel, and BrandLink, a public relations firm. When Universal Standard sought to claw back the documents because they were privileged, Target refused. The court considered whether the fact that emails between Universal Standard and its counsel were also shared with BrandLink should result in a waiver, or whether the communications fall under one of several possible exceptions to the general rule that “disclosure to a third party by the party of a communication with his attorney eliminates whatever privilege the communication may have originally possessed.” First, the court considered whether BrandLink was “essential to allow communications between the attorney and the client, such as an interpreter or accountant.” This exception applies where the third party enables counsel to understand aspects of the client’s own communications that could not otherwise be appreciated, but not where the communications are merely important to the attorney’s ability to represent the client. Here, the emails involved discussions...

New Jersey Supreme Court Formally Adopts and Defines the Scope and Application of the Common Interest Rule 0

New Jersey Supreme Court Formally Adopts and Defines the Scope and Application of the Common Interest Rule

In a matter of first impression, the New Jersey Supreme Court in O’Boyle v. Borough of Longport expressly adopted the common interest rule in New Jersey as articulated in LaPorta v. Gloucester County Board of Chosen Freeholders. Although previously addressed and analyzed by lower courts within New Jersey, the Court’s ruling clarifies the boundaries of the rule and offers guidance in resolving the scope of its application.

New Jersey Court Reaffirms Privilege Over Employee’s Personal Legal Communications Through Employer’s E-mail in Absence of Unambiguous Communications Policy 0

New Jersey Court Reaffirms Privilege Over Employee’s Personal Legal Communications Through Employer’s E-mail in Absence of Unambiguous Communications Policy

In an era when electronic communications are rapidly replacing most forms of correspondence, the Superior Court, Law Division, Bergen County, in Ferrer v. Stahlwerk Annahutte Max Aicher Gmbh & Co., recently reiterated that absent a clear electronic communications policy, employees have an expectation of privacy in the electronic communications they send from the workplace, including those from work accounts.

Third Circuit Clarifies that Reasonable Basis Standard Appropriate Quantum of Proof to Apply Crime-Fraud Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege 0

Third Circuit Clarifies that Reasonable Basis Standard Appropriate Quantum of Proof to Apply Crime-Fraud Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege

Clarifying the proofs necessary to apply the crime-fraud exception, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in In re: Grand Jury recently held that a “reasonable basis” standard should be used, explaining that such a standard affords sufficient predictability for attorneys and clients without providing undue protection to those who seek to abuse the attorney-client and the work-product privileges afforded to them.

Communication Between Counsel and Client’s Independent Contractors May Be Privileged 0

Communication Between Counsel and Client’s Independent Contractors May Be Privileged

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently found that communications generated and documents created by a party’s independent consultant may be entitled to attorney-client privilege protection. In In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation, direct and indirect purchasers of Flonase launched a class action against GlaxoSmithKline PLC (“GSK”) for allegedly delaying market entry of generic Flonase into the market. A dispute arose between GSK and direct purchasers as to whether the attorney-client privilege protects communications between GSK and its independent contractor, Swiftwater, which is a pharmaceutical consulting company. In this case, Swiftwater assisted GSK’s Flonase brand team in three areas: legal and regulatory, business development, and standard business practices. In the legal arena, Swiftwater assisted in the evaluation of legal and regulatory matters, such as evaluating GSK’s patent and intellectual property rights and FDA application to market over-the-counter Flonase.