Source: https://www.lacba.org/news-and-publications/lacba-update/past-ethics-articles/2015-oct-ethics-sall
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:22:58+00:00

Document:
By Robert K. Sall, who practices with Sall Spencer Callas & Krueger in Laguna Beach and is a past chair of the LACBA Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee. His practice focuses on business litigation, legal malpractice litigation, and attorney-client fee disputes. He can be reached at . The opinions expressed are his own rsall@sallspencer.com.
The County declined to produce its attorneys’ billing statements for still-pending lawsuits, asserting that the “detailed description, timing and amount of attorney work performed, which communicates to the client and discloses attorney strategy, tactics, thought processes and analysis” were privileged and exempt from disclosure under the CPRA. The County also asserted that its fee agreements with lawyers were privileged communications under Business and Professions Code (B&PC) Section 6149.2 ACLU conceded billing entries that revealed advice to the County, or attorney work product, could be redacted, but otherwise, billing statements were not protected by work product or attorney-client privilege and did not fall within recognized exceptions to the CPRA.
The trial court granted ACLU’s petition for writ of mandate to compel production, reasoning the attorney-client privilege does not protect every communication between attorney and client, and instead, the party claiming privilege must demonstrate with specific facts that the challenged documents qualify as privileged communications. The trial court concluded that the County had failed to demonstrate why billing statements, with proper redactions of entries containing advice or work product, would qualify as privileged communications. In ordering production of the billing statements, the trial court also determined that B&PC Section 6149 protects only fee agreements, not the invoices.
The court of appeal, in its now-superseded decision, explicitly disagreed with ACLU’s position that it is a basic principle that billing statements that do not contain legal advice or opinions are not privileged. ACLU based this argument on its interpretation of the final clause of Section 952, which, after stating that a confidential communication is one transmitted in confidence between attorney and client in the course of the relationship, also states: “…and includes a legal opinion formed and the advice given by the lawyer in the course of that relationship.” (Emphasis added.) ACLU argued that this language meant the communication must actually contain opinion or advice to be privileged. The court concluded that the California Supreme Court’s decision in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court5 compelled rejection of ACLU’s position. Quoting from Costco, a case that involved a lawyer’s opinion letter setting forth certain factual observations based on witness interviews, the Court stated: “[T]he attorney-client privilege attach[ed] to [the subject] opinion letter in its entirety, irrespective of the letter’s content.”6 Applying principles of statutory construction to Evidence Code Section 952, the court of appeal held that a confidential communication between lawyer and client does not need to transmit opinion or advice to be subject to the privilege.7 The billing statements, it concluded, are therefore privileged communications simply because they constitute confidential communications transmitted between attorney and client.
The California Supreme Court granted review of County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Courton July 8, 2015. The case is being closely monitored and will no doubt draw considerable amicus attention.
If fees are sought as damages, this raises the question whether the billing statements for the services of the counsel that performed the work are then discoverable, or whether they remain protected as privileged communications. Sometimes parties will agree on a qualified waiver, or obtain a protective order to prevent waiver and public release of otherwise confidential information. Parties seeking an award of prevailing party attorney fees may elect to place billing statements into evidence to support a fee application, thereby risking potential waiver of privileges or work product. Unredacted billing statements may reveal the lawyer’s strategies, research subjects, and the evaluation of legal options by a party’s counsel, and advice given. Depending upon the circumstances, even if billing statements are not absolutely privileged, this could potentially result in a waiver of work product or privilege protections. If a lawyer anticipates that billing statements must be filed to support an award of attorney fees, it may be prudent to consider drafting time entries carefully to avoid exposure of confidential information, and to provide such information to the client instead in privileged correspondence.
The California Supreme Court’s future decision in County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court will hopefully settle open questions about the extent to which attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine apply to law firm billing statements. In the interim, lawyers must remain cautious when making the decision whether or not to submit billing statements in the public record, or produce them in discovery, and the extent to which steps should be taken to prevent waiver.
1 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Div. Three, Case No. B257230, April 13, 2015 (now superseded by grant of review and pending in the California Supreme Court as Case No. S226645).
2 Business and Professions Code §6149 provides: “A written fee contract shall be deemed to be a confidential communication within the meaning of subdivision (e) of Section 6068, and Section 952 of the Evidence Code.” Thus, fee agreements are privileged.
3 See County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 211 Cal. App. 4th 57, 60-61 (2012); Smith v. Laguna Sur Villas Community Assn., 79 Cal. App. 4th 639, 642-43 (2000); and Concepcion v. Amscan Holdings, Inc., 223 Cal. App. 4th 1309, 1312-16, 1326-27 (2014) for examples cited by the court.
4 See California Court of Appeal, Second District, Div. Three, Case No. B257230, at 12 n.3.
5 Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, 47 Cal. 4th 725 (2009).
7 Here, the court seemed particularly influenced by the County’s argument that if legal advice or opinion must be in the content of the transmission to make it subject to a valid claim of privilege, then an inquiry from a client to his or her lawyer that contains neither advice nor opinion would not be privileged.
8 Gorman v. Tassajara, 178 Cal. App. 4th 44, 78-79 (2009); Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, 35 Cal. 3d 498 (1984).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §6149
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.