Opinion ID: 1058614
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pre-resignation Memorandum

Text: Cook next argues that the trial court erred in allowing Mario to introduce into evidence, over objection, the confidential pre-resignation memorandum Cook prepared for the purpose of seeking legal advice from his lawyer. Specifically, Cook argues that [t]he trial court violated Virginia's longstanding recognition of the sanctity of attorney-client communications when it allowed Mario to introduce, over objection, and to emphasize repeatedly a confidential memorandum that Cook prepared exclusively for the purpose of seeking legal advice from his attorney. Cook's argument is without merit. Confidential communications between attorney and client made because of that relationship and concerning the subject matter of the attorney's employment are privileged from disclosure, even for the purpose of administering justice. Commonwealth v. Edwards, 235 Va. 499, 508-09, 370 S.E.2d 296, 301 (1988) (quotation omitted). This privilege, however, is not absolute and may be waived. See Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Westmoreland-LG & E Partners, 259 Va. 319, 326, 526 S.E.2d 750, 755 (2000). Pursuant to Mario's employee handbook, Mario permitted employees to use their work computers for personal business. However, Mario's employee handbook provided that there was no expectation of privacy regarding Mario's computers. Cook created the pre-resignation memorandum on a work computer located at Mario's office. Cook printed the document from this computer, and Cook sent it to his attorney for the purposes of seeking legal advice. Cook then deleted the document from the computer. Mario's forensic computer expert, however, retrieved the document from the computer's hard drive. We held in Clagett v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 79, 92, 472 S.E.2d 263, 270 (1996), that the [attorney-client] privilege is waived where the communication takes place under circumstances such that persons outside the privilege can overhear what is said. See Edwards, 235 Va. at 509, 370 S.E.2d at 301 (The privilege may be expressly waived by the client, or a waiver may be implied from the client's conduct.). Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in admitting the pre-resignation memorandum into evidence.