Opinion ID: 2427845
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Letter of March 15, 1991

Text: For the same reasons, the March 15, 1991 letter and its attachment are likewise privileged. It is from the same attorney as the previous letter, King of Bracewell & Patterson. It is addressed to both McLelland (the general counsel of Valero) and Jeffrey Parish Vice President/Strategic Planning, and attaches a letter from Tejas. King's letter, on its face, is an attorney-client communication. The only basis on which the Long Trusts argue that it is not privileged is that Jeffrey Parish was not among those found by the trial court to be in the control group. The trial court's ruling was error and a clear abuse of discretion. First, the letter transmits legal advice directly to Parish, a vice president, and reflects that King will be discussing legal issues with Parish. This in and of itself is evidence that Parish had authority to seek and act on advice of counsel. But the determination of privilege need not depend on this very obvious inference. Parish testified that at the time this letter was written, he had the authority to evaluate legal advice and act upon it. The only information in the record that the Long Trusts contend raises a fact question on this issue is that Parish also said that he reported directly to Valero's general counsel, and Parish agreed on cross-examination that it was part of his duties to perform whatever assignments the general counsel gave him. This does not refute or call into question the clear, direct testimony of Parish that he had authority to seek and act on, and did act on, legal advice. The copy of the Tejas letter attached to King's letter is privileged because the Long Trusts are not entitled to know that Valero sought and obtained legal advice about the Tejas letter. Of course, for the reasons discussed above, other copies of the letter must be produced because the communication is not otherwise privileged.