Opinion ID: 2381401
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Privileged Communication

Text: Prior to the trial the Fullers invoked the attorney-client privilege to shield from discovery their conversations with their attorney, Alan Nelson. At the trial the Fullers attempted to have Attorney Nelson testify about the content of his private conversation with Evelyn at her initial conference with Attorney Nelson. The court, however, ruled that this conversation was a confidential attorney-client communication and could not be disclosed. At trial the Fullers did not object to this ruling, but now argue that it was erroneous. The existence of a privilege is a preliminary question for the court. M.R.Evid. 104(a). The privilege in this instance is dependent on whether Evelyn was, in fact, a client and whether the communication was confidential. We review the trial court's findings of fact for clear error. Morin Bldg. Prod. Co. v. Atlantic Design & Constr. Co., 615 A.2d 239, 241 (Me.1992). A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent her lawyer from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client.... M.R.Evid. 502(b). A `client' is a person ... who is rendered professional legal services by a lawyer, or who consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional legal services from him. M.R.Evid. 502(a)(1). A communication is `confidential' if not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those to whom disclosure is made in furtherance of the rendition of professional legal services to the client or those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication. M.R.Evid. 502(a)(5). The privilege may be claimed by ... the personal representative of a deceased client.... M.R.Evid. 502(c). In this instance Rich was the special administrator of Evelyn's estate and was empowered to claim the privilege. [1] Rich moved in limine to exclude all testimony by Nelson. The court permitted voir dire of Nelson to determine his relationship to Evelyn. Nelson admitted that, as he customarily does with elderly persons who are conveying property to a particular child, he met with Evelyn in private at the initial conference in April so that she could have an opportunity to reveal any reluctance to entering into the proposed lease and option arrangement. In response to this testimony the following colloquy took place: THE COURT: I am asking you as a lawyer that you recognize as when a person talks with you, talks about that kind and in that situation whether you deem that to be a confidential discussion? THE WITNESS: I guess it has to be treated as that, although I don't think the parties, she or I understood it to be that. THE COURT: You mean you thought it wasn't confidential? THE WITNESS: No, she was annoyed by the fact that I asked Ken to leave the office because she felt that this was an unnecessary exercise. THE COURT: But you gave her the impression that you didn't want him to hear it? THE WITNESS: Yes, absolutely. THE COURT: Talked with her freely and put confidence in you? THE WITNESS: So that if she said to me she had a misgiving at that point I would stop and require she get separate counsel. The court then ruled that for the purposes of the testimony of Mr. Nelson, any conversation that went on between Mr. Nelson and Mrs. Fuller is confidential and may not be disclosed. [2] The implicit findings that Evelyn was a client and that the communication was confidential went unchallenged at the trial. It is a fair inference that Nelson was, in effect, rendering professional legal services by speaking with Evelyn alone and making sure that the agreement was consistent with her personal desires. Indeed, Nelson admitted that the conversation was not intended to be disclosed to third persons and could be treated as confidential. We find no clear error in the court's determination that the conversation between Nelson and Evelyn was a privileged communication.