Source: https://www.lacba.org/news-and-publications/lacba-update/november-2016/ethics-article-november-2016
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 15:02:31+00:00

Document:
Robert K. Sall, practices with Sall Spencer Callas & Krueger in Laguna Beach and is a member of the LACBA Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee. His practice focuses on business litigation, legal malpractice litigation and attorney-client fee disputes. The opinions expressed are his own.
When production of an apparently privileged document occurs, it should not be reviewed any more than necessary to ascertain that it appears to be privileged and inadvertently produced, and notice must be given promptly to the privilege holder.5 Less guidance exists, however, for situations where there may have been an inadvertent forwarding of a single e-mail that appears to be privileged. When a lawyer receives an otherwise privileged writing from a third party, must such writing be treated as privileged and inadvertently produced? Who gets to determine whether there has been an implied waiver of privilege when it is unclear whether the act of forwarding was intentional, or merely a mistake in hitting the send button?
Imagine a situation where Lawyer A sends a privileged e-mail to Client A, who then inadvertently forwards it to a Third Party. The forward contains no explanation of Client A's reason for sending the e-mail, leaving it unclear whether the client intended to reveal his lawyer's communication or merely made an inadvertent transmission. Third Party then forwards the e-mail to another and it ultimately lands on the desk of Lawyer B, who is opposing counsel to Lawyer A and adverse to Client A. Because there is no express statement of Client A's intent, the possibility exists there was a waiver, but equally so, the possibility of inadvertence exists. Some would argue that no duties are imposed on Lawyer B under the Rico line of cases because it is not "reasonably apparent" that production of the document was inadvertent, and the e-mail does not clearly appear to be privileged because it is in circulation.6 Must Lawyer B stop reading and give notice to the privilege holder?
When a writing is one between attorney and client sent during the course of that relationship, the writing is presumed to be privileged, and the burden of proof will be on the opponent of the claim of privilege to establish otherwise.11 In such circumstances, the attorney-client privilege is presumed to attach the entire writing irrespective of its content.12 Thus, until it may be proven otherwise by the opponent of the privilege, the document is presumed privileged and therefore obviously appears to be privileged. Where coming to the lawyer from a third party with no clear expression of the privilege holder's consent, the receipt of the document is inadvertent and the Rico disclosure obligation should apply.
The Rico line of cases imposes a self-policing process for a lawyer to recognize and ascertain when the document may still be privileged. Circumstantial evidence that may support a waiver does not mean there has been a waiver, and one should not be assumed. Rico requires that the privilege holder be given notice so that he or she has the opportunity to claim privilege and inadvertence. The possibility of waiver and inadvertent production exists in virtually every case where adverse counsel possesses what would otherwise appear to be a privileged document. Such a document was either intentionally produced or forwarded by the privilege holder, constituting waiver, or obtained by inadvertence of the privilege holder. The act of someone else being in possession of and circulating the document without the privilege holder's authorization does not in itself establish waiver. In the absence of an express waiver on the face of the document or communicated to the receiving attorney, the receiving attorney must assume that the document is still privileged, its production inadvertent, and notice should be given to the privilege holder. Only then can the parties know whether a waiver was intended and, as Rico requires, resolve the matter by agreement or by seeking guidance from the court.
1 Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 42 Cal. 4th 807, 817-18 (2007).
2 State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc., 70 Cal. App. 4th 644 (1999).
3 Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 42 Cal. 4th 807 (2007).
4 Clark v. Superior Ct., 196 Cal. App. 4th 37 (2011).
5 Id. See also, State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc., 70 Cal. App. 4th 644 (1999).
6 Facts similar to these were recently argued in a pending writ of mandate proceeding in the Fourth District Court of Appeal, McDermott, Will & Emery v. Superior Ct., Case No. G053623.
9 State Fund, supra, 70 Cal. App. 4th 644 at 657.
10 State Bar Formal Op. 2013-188, at 4.
12 Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Ct., 47 Cal. 4th 725 730-31(2009).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.