Opinion ID: 2376955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege

Text: ¶ 36 Justice Sanders objects to the trial court's interpretation of the attorney-client privilege. The trial court held that [o]nce an attorney-client relationship exists, any communication arising from that relationship is privileged, unless waived or controlled by a recognized exception to the privilege. CP at 1724. It applied this understanding when determining whether the disputed documents were exempt. Id. Justice Sanders argues that the privilege protects only communications pertaining to legal advice and urges us to hold that if the client is not seeking legal advice when communicating with the attorney, the communication is not privileged. Otherwise, he maintains, every phone call from AGO to a government agency will be privileged. Sanders's Opening Br. at 34. ¶ 37 It is unnecessary to decide whether Justice Sanders's interpretation of the attorney-client privilege is correct. If the issue were dispositive as to any document withheld in this case, we would determine the proper scope of the attorney-client privilege, and, if the trial court applied the wrong legal standard, remand to the trial court for application of the proper standard. However, we have reviewed all of the disputed documents as part of our analysis of the work product privilege, discussed below. In the interest of judicial economy, we also reviewed each claim of attorney-client privilege. In doing so we assumed, without needing to decide, that the attorney-client privilege protects only communications pertaining to legal advice. The result in this case is the same irrespective of whether we adopt the trial court's analysis of the attorney-client privilege or the analysis advocated by Justice Sanders. Our conclusions are set forth below in part e.