Opinion ID: 1953777
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applicability of the Attorney-Client Privilege

Text: [¶ 15] Citizens next argues that because the attorney-client privilege grants a privileged status to communications between parties and their representatives when those communications concern a matter of common interest, its communications with the City and DEP are privileged because they share a common interest to thoroughly clean up the environmental contamination of the Cove. [¶ 16] Colas and the State argue that the attorney-client privilege does not protect communications between adverse parties on opposite sides of the bargaining table. Rather, they contend, the common interest component of the privilege prevents clients from waiving the attorney-client privilege when attorney-client communications are shared with a third person who has a common legal interest with respect to the communications, such as a co-defendant. We agree. [¶ 17] M.R. Evid. 502(b), Lawyer-Client Privilege, provides in pertinent part: General rule of privilege. A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client (1) . . . or (3) by the client or the client's representative or the lawyer or a representative of the lawyer to a lawyer or a representative of a lawyer representing another party in a pending action and concerning a matter of common interest therein. . . . [¶ 18] The argument that adverse entities have shared interests merely because they are willing to negotiate a settlement is an attempt to distort the scope of the attorney-client privilege. The City, DEP, and Citizens clearly do not have a common interest as the term is contemplated by Rule 502(b)(3). The DEP is operating in its enforcement capacity to negotiate an allocation of clean-up responsibilities, whereby as much of the costs and labor are assumed by the liable parties. The City and Citizens, public and private entities respectively, have been found responsible for polluting the Cove, and seek to minimize their clean-up responsibilities. Each entity thus has highly divergent and opposing interests. The entry is: Motion to dismiss denied. Judgment affirmed.