Source: http://attorneyclientprivilege.mcguirewoods.com/chapter.aspx?ch=17
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 13:06:12+00:00

Document:
"Court Explains What "Facts Are Never Privileged" Means"
Historical facts never deserve privilege protection. Something either happened or it didn't happen. But some litigants erroneously point to this axiom in seeking to discover factual portions of clients' privileged communications to their lawyers, and vice versa.
In Toyo Tire & Rubber Co. v. Atturo Tire Corp., defendant sought emails between Toyo and its lawyers, arguing "that the emails it seeks concerned underlying facts, which are not protected by the attorney-client privilege." Case No. 14 C 206, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72756, at *7 (N.D. Ill. June 3, 2016). The court correctly explained that "[t]he vast majority of communications between attorneys and clients contain some mixture of fact and legal opinion" — noting that "the relevant inquiry is whether the documents or communications sought were transmitted for the purpose of obtaining legal advice." Id. at *8-9. The court rejected defendant's argument, and found the withheld documents privileged after reviewing them in camera. The court concluded by explaining the practical consequences of this universally accepted principle: "the underlying facts communicated between an attorney and a client can be discovered through depositions or other discovery techniques." Id. at *6.
It is ironic that some lawyers and even courts think that clients' recitations of historical facts to their lawyers do not deserve privilege protection. The privilege exists to assure absolute privacy for such communications, so such recitations actually represent the most protected of all communications.
Last week's Privilege Point described a court's recognition that the work product doctrine can protect lawyers' communications with third party witnesses. Five days later, another court dealt with lawyers' reports to their clients about such third party communications.
In Finjan, Inc. v. SonicWall, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177061 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018), defendant sought discovery of what apparently were plaintiff's lawyer's reports to his client about the lawyer's communications with third parties. Although its opinion contained several redactions, the court held that some of the emails deserved privilege protection because they were "not merely a neutral recording" of the lawyer's communications with those third parties. Id. at *8. The court also noted that even defendant acknowledged that such reports deserved privilege protection if they were "so interwoven with legal advice [they] may be considered privileged as a whole." Id. The court also found work product protection, because the reports "reflect counsel's mental processes and reveal the information he considered significant" – rather than "merely verbatim summaries." Id. at *9.
Lawyers' reports of their communications with third parties can deserve privilege protection if: (1) they infuse their summaries with their legal advice or opinion; or (2) their recitation of certain portions of those communications reflects their legal advice or opinion. Some courts' statements that "verbatim reports" cannot deserve privilege or work product protection seems incorrect – if those verbatim reports memorialize legal opinions, or reflect lawyers' series of opinion-revealing specific questions to the third parties, and the third parties' responses.
"How Do Courts Apply the "Primary Purpose" Privilege Standard?: Part II"
Last week's Privilege Point described a court's rejection of an in-house lawyer's affidavit swearing that a client's employees' communications to him sought legal advice. FTC v. AbbVie, Inc., Civ. A. No. 14-5151, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166723 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2015). The obvious lesson is that corporate employees should explicitly seek legal advice in their communications. A similar principle applies when lawyers communicate to their corporate clients.
Also in FTC v. AbbVie, Inc., the court assessed a company's privilege claim for its outside lawyer's report about his meeting with a patent examiner. The court correctly noted that the privilege does not protect lawyers' communications to their clients simply reciting government officials' statements. The company argued that the redacted portion of its lawyer's report was "not a direct quote" from the patent examiner, and that the redacted portion "succinctly incorporated [the lawyer's] mental impressions." Id. At *13. But the court concluded that it "cannot plausibly read the [redacted portion] in this way." Id. The court then noted that "[t]here are no accompanying legal conclusions or perceptions, and the redacted [portion] does not include qualifying language such as 'I believe' or 'my opinion is.'" Id. At *12-13.
Corporations' lawyers should discipline themselves to explicitly state whether their communications to their client's employees contain their legal advice or reflect their legal judgment through their selection of excerpts from conversations with government officials, and leave no room for conjecture.
"Court Takes a Very Narrow View of Legal Advice in a Corporate Setting"
Attorney-client privilege protection depends on content, and the key issue normally involves distinguishing between primarily legal and primarily business advice. Courts disagree about where to draw that line.
In Koumoulis v. Independent Financial Marketing Group, Inc., No. 10-CV-0887 (PKC) (VMS), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157299 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2013), the court examined communications between a Duane Morris lawyer and her corporate client's human resources employees. The court rejected privilege claims for most of the lawyer's communications. For instance, the court noted that the Duane Morris lawyer "sometimes told Human Resources employees exactly what questions to ask during interviews and what statements to make during meetings," and that "her advice would advance business goals, such as improving business relationships." Id. At *45. The court also noted that Duane Morris' "advice rarely involved 'the interpretation and application of legal principles to guide future conduct or to assess past conduct,'. . . And rarely explicitly considered future litigation." Id. At *45-46.
Not all courts would take this narrow view, but the decision provides a good lesson. Wise lawyers train their clients to explicitly explain in the four corners of their communications that they are seeking legal advice, that they are worried about litigation, etc. However, it is also important for lawyers to explicitly explain in their responses that they are providing legal advice (by mentioning legal principles, citing statutes or case law, etc.) and to mention litigation if the client reasonably anticipates it.
Not surprisingly, many lawyers think the attorney-client privilege (if not the whole world) revolves around them. Actually, the privilege primarily protects clients' communications to lawyers, not vice versa. And because the privilege normally protects only client-lawyer communications, lawyers face an uphill climb when seeking privilege protection for documents they have not sent to their clients.
In Broadrock Gas Services, LLC v. AIG Specialty Insurance Co., No. 14 cv. 3927 (AJN) (MHD), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26462 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2015), defendant claimed privilege protection for a K&L Gates lawyer's memorandum to the file analyzing insurance coverage issues. In an opinion by Judge Dolinger, the court first noted that there was "no evidence in our record" that (1) K&L Gates sent the memo to the client; (2) K&L "used [it] to advise the client"; or (3) the memo "described or embodied the substance of any communication between the client and the attorney." Id. at *7. The court rejected defendant's privilege claim — emphasizing that the privilege "is limited to communications between client and attorney" or others facilitating the attorney-client relationship. Id. The court also quoted an earlier Southern District of New York decision holding that the privilege did not protect "'documents embodying uncommunicated thoughts of counsel, as in the form of notes or memoranda to the file.'" Id. at *7-8 (quoting Bodega Invs., LLC v. United States, No. 08 Civ. 4065 (RMB)(MHD), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48513, at *27 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2009)).
In assessing privilege protection, lawyers should recognize their secondary role — and not assume that their uncommunicated documents automatically deserve privilege protection.

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