Preservation of the Attorney-client Privilege: Using Agents and Intermediaries to Obtain Legal Advice
Publication year | 2001 |
Pages | 51 |
Citation | Vol. 30 No. 5 Pg. 51 |
2001, May, Pg. 51. Preservation of the Attorney-Client Privilege: Using Agents and Intermediaries to Obtain Legal Advice
Vol. 30, No. 5, Pg. 51
The Colorado Lawyer
May 2001
Vol. 30, No. 5 [Page 51]
May 2001
Vol. 30, No. 5 [Page 51]
Specialty Law Columns
The Civil Litigator
Preservation of the Attorney-Client Privilege: Using Agents and Intermediaries to Obtain Legal Advice
by Michael H. Berger
The Civil Litigator
Preservation of the Attorney-Client Privilege: Using Agents and Intermediaries to Obtain Legal Advice
by Michael H. Berger
The client often brings along family members, trusted
friends, and business advisors for meetings with a lawyer
The client may not know the lawyer and often has no
experience dealing with lawyers or the legal system. The
client may be a child or may have some disability that makes
meaningful communication with the lawyer difficult or even
impossible. In the client's mind, bringing along a
trusted person to aid communication with the lawyer and help
make difficult choices is simple common sense. However, such
common sense may collide with the doctrine of waiver of the
attorney-client privilege. This common practice raises
difficult questions for the lawyer, who is charged with
advising the client regarding preservation of the
attorney-client privilege, as well as preserving the
client's confidences.1
Generally, the attorney-client privilege is waived when the
client communicates the substance of the lawyer's legal
advice to a third party or where a third party is permitted
to participate in the privileged communications between the
client and the lawyer.2 Thus, under the traditional test of
waiver, permitting a third party to participate in the
confidential communications between lawyer and client
constitutes a waiver of the privilege
Ironically, a corporation or other legal entity that seeks
legal advice does not operate under the same constraints. A
corporation may appoint numerous employees in any variety of
disciplines to communicate and consult with the
corporation's lawyer without risk of waiver of the
privilege.3 However, an individual seeking legal advice may
not have the equivalent ability to have a spouse or other
trusted person participate in his or her legal consultations
without risking waiver of the attorney-client privilege.4
The purpose of this article is to examine waiver of the
attorney-client privilege and determine under what
circumstances an individual may involve non-attorney advisors
in the attorney-client relationship without waiving the
privilege. Because the Colorado Supreme Court has adopted the
agency rule, at least in part, with respect to the
attorney-client privilege, that rule is the focus of this
article
The Attorney-Client Privilege
The attorney-client privilege originated in the common law
and has been codified in most jurisdictions. The purpose of
the attorney-client privilege is to "secure the orderly
administration of justice by insuring candid and open
discussion by the client to the attorney without fear of
disclosure."5 The Colorado statute that codifies the
attorney-client privilege provides that client consent is
necessary before an attorney can reveal any communications
made by the client, or the attorney's own advice, given
in the course of professional employment.6 The statute also
provides that an attorney's secretary, paralegal, legal
assistant, stenographer, or clerk may not reveal such
communications without the consent of the employer.
The Law of Agency
Courts and commentators are not in agreement on the
analytical framework or the results of the analysis
concerning the situation in which a person other than the
client participates in the communications between the client
and the lawyer. Some courts and commentators use the law of
agency to analyze this issue. Others speak in terms of
facilitators who are essential or necessary for the client to
obtain legal advice. Other authorities do not specify the
rationale for their holdings. The Colorado Supreme Court, at
least in part, has applied the law of agency to issues
involving the attorney-client privilege.
Unlike the attorney-client privilege statute in certain other
jurisdictions, the Colorado statute does not expressly expand
the privilege to agents of the client or agents of the
lawyer, excluding the lawyer's secretaries, paralegals,
legal assistants, stenographers, and clerks.7 Nevertheless,
the Colorado Supreme Court has held that communications made
to an agent of the lawyer are protected by the privilege,
irrespective of whether such an agent is described in the
attorney-client privilege statute.8
Agents of the Lawyer
In Miller v. District Court,9 a psychiatrist was retained by
defense counsel to assist in the preparation of the defense
to criminal charges. The prosecution learned about the
examination by the psychiatrist, and, after the defendant
entered a plea of not guilty by reason of impaired mental
condition, the prosecution subpoenaed the psychiatrist as a
witness. The Colorado Supreme Court ordered the trial court
to quash the contempt citation issued when the psychiatrist
refused to testify regarding his communications with the
defendant.
In an expansive reading of the Colorado attorney-client
privilege statute, the Court specifically adopted the agency
rule of the attorney-client privilege, at least with respect
to agents of the lawyer. Thus, "the privilege may be
applied to communications between the client and agents of
his attorney."10 The Court further explained its holding
by stating:
The agency rule recognizes that the complexities of practice
prevent attorneys from effectively handling clients'
affairs without the help of others. The assistance of these
agents being indispensable, . . . [t]he privilege must
include all persons who act as the attorney's agents.11
Therefore, it is settled in Colorado that communications
between a client and an agent of the lawyer, whether or not
the agent falls within the categories set forth in the
statute, remain privileged.12
Agents of the Client
What about agents of the client, as opposed to agents of the
lawyer? The Colorado attorney-client statute makes no mention
of agents of the client.13 Although no reported Colorado case
holds that communications between agents of the client and
the lawyer are protected by the privilege, the Miller Court
did address the issue, in dictum.14 The majority of the Court
quoted, with approval, the following language of Chief
Justice Traynor of the California Supreme Court in City of
San Francisco v. Superior Court:15
It is no less the client's communication to the attorney
when it is given by the client to an agent for transmission
to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial