Opinion ID: 2322020
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proof of Mistake of Fact and the Attorney-Client Privilege

Text: [¶ 28] Jensen asserts that his gradual injury is work-related and that he was justified in giving late notice of his claim and filing a late petition for award based on information communicated to him in a meeting with his attorney. The hearing officer found that Jensen was operating under a mistake of fact about the cause or nature of his 2004 gradual injury until he met with his attorney in June 2006. At the hearing, S.D. Warren attempted to elicit testimony about the conversations that took place at the June 2006 meeting that prompted Jensen to understand the cause or nature of his injury. The hearing officer sustained Jensen's objection on attorney-client privilege grounds. [¶ 29] Barring this inquiry based on attorney-client privilege was error. Jensen disclosed the most significant part of the attorney-client communication as the basis for his claim. He asserted that the information indicating that the injury was causally related to his work came from his attorney. This factual information was essential to Jensen's claim for benefits, and it provided the basis for Jensen's mistake of fact contention to avoid the ninety-day notice requirement and the two-year statute of limitations. Jensen asserted the attorney-client privilege, not to keep the communication with his attorney confidentialhe had already published the communicationbut to prevent inquiry into the credibility of the mistake of fact claim that rested on his attorney-client communication. [¶ 30] Pursuant to M.R. Evid. 502(b), the attorney-client privilege extends only to confidential communications between an attorney and client. An attorney-client communication that is disclosed to advance a claim for benefits is not a confidential communication. The attorney-client privilege of M.R. Evid. 502 does not protect such a published communication from discovery and inquiry when it relates to an essential fact in a proceeding. [¶ 31] That this communication is not privileged is confirmed by M.R. Evid. 510, which specifies that any privilege is waived if the person ... voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the privileged matter. Applying Rule 510, we have held that a privilege is waived when a significant part or key element of the privileged communication has been disclosed by the party claiming entitlement to the privilege. State v. Lipham, 2006 ME 137, ¶¶ 7-8, 910 A.2d 388, 391-92; State v. Boucher, 652 A.2d 76, 77-78 (Me.1994). The Advisers' Note accompanying the adoption of M.R. Evid. 510 states: The proposition that a privilege is waived by voluntary disclosure is universally recognized. [¶ 32] Commenting on the purpose of M.R. Evid. 510, Professors Field and Murray have observed: A more difficult problem is when the holder's conduct should in fairness amount to a waiver. A client, for instance, should not be allowed to state the client's reliance on his or her lawyer's advice and then assert the client's privilege not to let the lawyer testify about the advice actually given. Richard H. Field & Peter R. Murray, Maine Evidence § 510.1, 253 (6th ed.2008). That comment informs the privilege claim before us today. [¶ 33] Field and Murray's comment is consistent with the American Law Institute formulation of the rule regarding waiver of the attorney-client privilege. § 80 Putting Assistance or a Communication in Issue (1) The attorney-client privilege is waived for any relevant communication if the client asserts as to a material issue in a proceeding that: (a) the client acted upon the advice of a lawyer or that the advice was otherwise relevant to the legal significance of the client's conduct; or (b) a lawyer's assistance was ineffective, negligent, or otherwise wrongful. Restatement (Third) of The Law Governing Lawyers § 80 (2000). The comment to section 80 provides: Putting a privileged communication into issue. The exceptions stated in Subsection (1) are based on considerations of forensic fairness.... If the communication could not be introduced, a client could present the justification of legal advice in an inaccurate, incomplete, and self-serving way.... Waiver extends to all communications relevant to the issue asserted by the client. Id. cmt. b. [¶ 34] Here, the privileged communication was published by Jensen to support his claim that he was not aware that his injury was work-related and that the later discovery of the cause of the injury was a mistake of fact. When published by Jensen, his attorney-client communication was no longer confidential, and the attorney-client privilege was waived. The employer should have been permitted to ask Jensen what he learned during his conversation with his attorney that caused him to realize that he had sustained a new, work-related, gradual injury.