Court Opinion

ID: 9402693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 16:07:00.431515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:30.391870
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                    No. 64A22

                                Filed 16 June 2023

KELLY C. HOWARD AND FIFTH THIRD BANK, as co-trustees of the Ronald E.
Howard Revocable Trust dated February 9, 2016, as amended and restated

             v.
IOMAXIS, LLC, BRAD C. BOOR a/k/a BRAD C. BUHR, JOHN SPADE, JR.,
WILLIAM P. GRIFFIN, III, and NICHOLAS HURYSH, JR.

      Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a)(3) from an order on defendant

IOMAXIS, LLC’s motion for protective order entered on 22 November 2021 by Judge

Michael L. Robinson, Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases, in

Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, after the case was designated a mandatory

complex business case by the Chief Justice pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-45.4(b). Heard

in the Supreme Court on 1 February 2023.

      Johnston, Allison & Hord, P.A., by Patrick E. Kelly, Greg Ahlum, and David T.
      Lewis, for plaintiffs-appellees.

      Allen, Chesson & Grimes PLLC, by Benjamin S. Chesson, David N. Allen, and
      Anna C. Majestro; and Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, by Travis A.
      Bustamante, for defendant-appellant IOMAXIS, LLC.

      Miller Monroe & Plyler, PLLC, by Jason A. Miller, Paul T. Flick, John W.
      Holton, and Robert B. Rader III; and Robert F. Orr, for defendant-appellee
      Nicholas Hurysh, Jr.

      DIETZ, Justice.

      In July 2020, the defendants in this business court litigation all were jointly

represented by the same law firm. Those defendants are a corporate entity—
                              HOWARD V. IOMAXIS, LLC

                                   Opinion of the Court

IOMAXIS, LLC—and the individual corporate members of IOMAXIS.

       During a joint conference call with counsel, one of the defendants, Nicholas

Hurysh, secretly recorded the conversation. After a falling out among the co-

defendants, Hurysh sought to waive the attorney–client privilege and disclose the

contents of the call.

       IOMAXIS moved for a protective order, arguing that the call was to discuss

corporate matters. IOMAXIS further argued that counsel on the call (who also was

IOMAXIS’s counsel for general corporate matters) was providing advice to the

individual defendants solely in their roles as agents of the company.

       The trial court rejected this argument and ruled that Hurysh held the privilege

individually and could waive it. As explained below, we affirm. The trial court made

a fact finding that counsel was not acting as corporate counsel but instead as joint

defense counsel for all the defendants, including Hurysh, under a written joint

defense agreement. That finding is supported by at least some competent evidence in

the record and thus is binding on appeal.

       Based on that finding, the trial court properly determined that Hurysh jointly

held the attorney–client privilege with respect to the secretly recorded call and

“therefore may opt to waive the privilege if he so desires.”

                          Facts and Procedural History

       This case concerns a corporate entity known as IOMAXIS, LLC. In 2017, the

founder and majority owner of IOMAXIS passed away. A dispute later arose between

                                           -2-
                              HOWARD V. IOMAXIS, LLC

                                   Opinion of the Court

the trust formed by his estate, whose trustees are the plaintiffs in this action, and the

remaining members of IOMAXIS, who are defendants in this action.

      During this time period, the law firm Holland & Knight, LLP represented

IOMAXIS in connection with “general corporate matters” under a standard corporate

engagement letter. This engagement letter was solely between Holland & Knight and

IOMAXIS and did not involve representation of the individual members of IOMAXIS.

      The CEO of IOMAXIS, Bob Burleson, signed this engagement letter on behalf

of the company. Adam August, the Holland & Knight attorney who signed the

engagement letter, was the primary attorney handling the corporate legal matters

described in the engagement letter on behalf of Holland & Knight.

      In June 2018, plaintiffs brought this action against IOMAXIS and the

remaining members of the company. Plaintiffs’ suit sought to resolve “whether

IOMAXIS is a North Carolina or Texas limited liability company; whether there is a

valid operating agreement; whether the Trust is entitled to distributions from

IOMAXIS on the basis of Decedent Howard’s interest therein; and whether the buy-

sell provisions under the North Carolina operating agreement controlled at the time

of Decedent Howard’s death.”

      In July 2018, Holland & Knight executed a second engagement letter, this one

covering the “dispute” with plaintiffs and the lawsuit “in state court in North

Carolina.” This second engagement letter stated that Holland & Knight would jointly

represent IOMAXIS and its individual corporate members, all of whom were named

                                           -3-
                             HOWARD V. IOMAXIS, LLC

                                  Opinion of the Court

defendants in this litigation. The letter emphasized that “there will be no way in this

joint representation for you to pursue your individual interests through your common

attorney.” A different Holland & Knight attorney, Phillip Evans, signed this second

engagement letter.

      There is nothing in the second engagement letter, or anywhere else in the

record, indicating that Holland & Knight created any separation within the firm

between attorneys handling the corporate matters and attorneys handling the

litigation matters.

      The second engagement letter also addressed potential implications of the joint

representation. The letter stated that “as a necessary consequence of this joint

representation, all information you share with [Holland & Knight] in this joint

representation will be shared among each other.” It continued, “[I]n the unlikely

event of a disagreement among you, the attorney–client privilege will not protect the

information you share with us.”

      On 22 July 2020, Adam August of Holland & Knight participated in a Zoom

call with IOMAXIS CEO Bob Burleson and IOMAXIS members Brad Buhr, Trey

Griffin, Nicholas Hurysh, and John Spade.

      Several months after this call, the relationship among the remaining members

of IOMAXIS deteriorated. Hurysh retained new counsel, sought to bring crossclaims

against the other members of IOMAXIS, and ultimately revealed that he had

recorded the July 22 conference call. Hurysh asserted that he held the attorney–client

                                          -4-
                               HOWARD V. IOMAXIS, LLC

                                     Opinion of the Court

privilege with respect to the call and intended to waive it so that he could use the

contents of the call in this litigation.

       In response, IOMAXIS asserted that it held the exclusive attorney–client

privilege over the July 22 call and that Hurysh had no authority to waive that

privilege. The presiding business court judge referred this issue to another business

court judge for resolution. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order finding

that August’s legal advice on the July 22 call was made under the second engagement

letter, in which Holland & Knight jointly represented Hurysh, the other corporate

members, and IOMAXIS. As a result, the court determined that Hurysh held the

attorney–client privilege and could choose to waive it despite objection from

IOMAXIS.

       IOMAXIS timely appealed this interlocutory order. We have appellate

jurisdiction over this matter because a trial court order compelling the disclosure of

purportedly privileged communications affects a substantial right and is immediately

appealable. See In re Miller, 357 N.C. 316, 343 (2003).

                                           Analysis

       The crux of this case is whether the trial court properly determined that

Hurysh jointly held the attorney–client privilege over the July 22 call and whether

the court used the proper legal test to make that determination.

       For the attorney–client privilege to apply, “the relation of attorney and client

must have existed at the time the particular communication was made.” Friday Invs.,

                                             -5-
                               HOWARD V. IOMAXIS, LLC

                                   Opinion of the Court

LLC v. Bally Total Fitness of the Mid-Atl., Inc., 370 N.C. 235, 238 (2017) (cleaned up).

      Typically, an attorney–client relationship arises “between an attorney and a

single client the attorney represents.” Id. But this Court also has recognized “a

multiparty attorney–client relationship in which an attorney represents two or more

clients.” Id. The rationale for this multiparty attorney–client relationship “is that

individuals with a common interest in the litigation should be able to freely

communicate with their attorney, and with each other, to more effectively defend or

prosecute their claims.” Id.

      Once a court determines that an attorney–client relationship exists, the court

applies a five-factor test to assess whether a particular communication is protected

by the privilege. Id. at 240. That test examines whether:

             (1) the relation of attorney and client existed at the time
             the communication was made, (2) the communication was
             made in confidence, (3) the communication relates to a
             matter about which the attorney is being professionally
             consulted, (4) the communication was made in the course
             of giving or seeking legal advice for a proper purpose
             although litigation need not be contemplated and (5) the
             client has not waived the privilege.

Id.

      “The trial court is best suited to determine, through a fact-sensitive inquiry,

whether the attorney–client privilege applies to a specific communication.” Id.

(emphasis omitted). When conducting this fact-sensitive inquiry, the trial court is not

required to make specific fact findings. Id. When the trial court does not make written

fact findings, “it is presumed that the court on proper evidence found facts to support

                                           -6-
                              HOWARD V. IOMAXIS, LLC

                                   Opinion of the Court

its judgment.” Id. at 241. But when, as here, the trial court finds facts in its written

order, a different standard of review applies, known as the “competent evidence”

standard. Under this test, a trial court’s findings of fact “will be upheld if supported

by any competent evidence” in the record. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stox,

330 N.C. 697, 702 (1992) (emphasis added). “This is true even when evidence to the

contrary is present.” Id. Our role under the competent evidence standard is solely to

assess if any competent evidence supports the trial court’s finding; if so, that finding

is “conclusive on appeal.” Hutchins v. Honeycutt, 286 N.C. 314, 319 (1974). Once we

determine which fact findings are supported by competent evidence, we then review

whether the trial court’s ruling, based on those findings, amounted to an abuse of the

court’s discretion. Friday Invs., 370 N.C. at 241.

      No party in this appeal disputes these principles of the attorney–client

privilege. But IOMAXIS seeks review of what it describes as an “exceedingly narrow

issue” that this Court has not yet addressed: Does our traditional five-factor test for

attorney–client privilege apply to more complex attorney–client relationships in the

corporate setting?

      IOMAXIS argues that the trial court should not have used our state’s

traditional test and instead should have adopted a more sophisticated test that other

courts apply when a corporate officer asserts a personal claim of attorney–client

privilege over communications with the corporation’s counsel. See In re Bevill, Bresler

& Schulman Asset Mgmt. Corp., 805 F.2d 120, 123 (3d Cir. 1986). This test, which

                                           -7-
                             HOWARD V. IOMAXIS, LLC

                                   Opinion of the Court

originated in the Third Circuit, is used by many other federal and state courts.

      The Bevill test, as it is known, exists because a corporation “cannot speak

directly to its lawyers.” United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010).

Instead,   the   corporation’s   attorney–client    relationship   is   formed   through

communications between the attorney and the individual officers, directors, and

employees of the company. Id. These same officers, directors, and employees

occasionally seek personal legal advice from corporate counsel. When this occurs,

courts have developed a test to determine whether a separate attorney–client

relationship arose between the attorney and the individual officer, director, or

employee. Bevill, 805 F.2d at 123. The Bevill test puts the burden on the individual

to show that there was a separate attorney–client privilege beyond the existing

relationship between the attorney and the corporation. Id.

      Under the Bevill test, corporate officers asserting personal privilege claims

must show (1) that they approached the corporate counsel for the purpose of seeking

legal advice, (2) that when they approached counsel they made it clear that they were

seeking legal advice in their individual rather than in their representative capacities,

(3) that counsel saw fit to communicate with them in their individual capacities,

knowing that a possible conflict could arise, (4) that their conversations with counsel

were confidential, and (5) that the substance of their conversations with counsel did

not concern matters within the company or the general affairs of the company. Id.

      We see the benefit of endorsing the Bevill test for use when our courts must

                                           -8-
                             HOWARD V. IOMAXIS, LLC

                                  Opinion of the Court

determine whether a corporate official can assert an individual attorney–client

privilege over communications with corporate counsel. The Bevill test has been

widely adopted by other state and federal courts. See, e.g., Graf, 610 F.3d at 1157; Ex

parte Smith, 942 So. 2d 356, 360 (Ala. 2006); In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 274 F.3d

563, 571–72 (1st Cir. 2001); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 144 F.3d 653, 659 (10th Cir.

1998); Zielinski v. Clorox Co., 504 S.E.2d 683, 686 (Ga. 1998); United States v. Int’l

Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., AFL-CIO, 119

F.3d 210, 214–15 (2d Cir. 1997). In these other jurisdictions, the test has proved

useful to guide expectations about the attorney–client privilege in the corporate

context. This is important because, “if the purpose of the attorney–client privilege is

to be served, the attorney and client must be able to predict with some degree of

certainty whether particular discussions will be protected.” Upjohn Co. v. United

States, 449 U.S. 383, 393 (1981). By endorsing this test, we can provide clarity for

corporate counsel concerning the appropriate steps to either create, or avoid creating,

a separate attorney–client privilege when communicating with corporate officers or

employees.

      Having said that, every attorney–client privilege question is a “fact-intensive

inquiry” that must be resolved on a case-by-case basis. Friday Invs., 370 N.C. at 240.

Here, the facts found by the trial court mean there was no need to apply the Bevill

test, because the advice Holland & Knight provided was not given as corporate

counsel but instead as joint defense counsel for the company and its individual

                                          -9-
                            HOWARD V. IOMAXIS, LLC

                                  Opinion of the Court

members who were named parties in this litigation.

      Specifically, the trial court found that Hurysh was represented by Holland &

Knight in this litigation under the terms of an express engagement letter. That

engagement letter stated that Holland & Knight jointly represented Hurysh, his

fellow corporate members, and IOMAXIS and that “there will be no way in this joint

representation for you to pursue your individual interests through your common

attorney.” The engagement letter further stated that “in the unlikely event of a

disagreement among you, the attorney–client privilege will not protect the

information you share with us.”

      After reviewing the entire July 22 call transcript in context, the trial court

found that “the purpose of the July 22 Call was for August, an H&K attorney, to give

the four members of IOMAXIS information for them to determine whether it was in

their individual best interests to sign the proposed amended operating agreement,

drafted by H&K attorneys for possible execution, particularly in light of the pending

litigation.” Based on this finding, the court further found that, during the July 22

call, the communications from August were “in his capacity as an attorney” with “a

firm that Hurysh had hired to defend him in this litigation, providing legal advice

about the potential impact of Hurysh’s possible actions (signing an amendment to

IOMAXIS’ operating agreement) on his defense in this litigation.”

      Finally, the trial court acknowledged that August “very messily” stated at one

point during the July 22 call that “our client is the company” and that the amended

                                         -10-
                              HOWARD V. IOMAXIS, LLC

                                   Opinion of the Court

operating agreement “is in the best interest of the company.” But the trial court found

that this “disclaimer” did not change the fact that August went on to “give Hurysh

advice that was in his best interest in defending himself in the lawsuit” and that

August gave that personal legal advice to Hurysh “without limitation or

qualification.” Thus, the trial court found that August’s communications on the July

22 call were subject to the litigation engagement letter creating a joint defense

relationship among Hurysh, his fellow IOMAXIS members, and the company itself.

      All of these fact findings are supported by at least some competent evidence in

the record. We acknowledge that IOMAXIS points to other, competing evidence in the

record which suggests that August was acting in his role as corporate counsel for

IOMAXIS. The trial court rejected this competing evidence. Under the competent

evidence standard, we must accept the trial court’s findings despite this competing

evidence. Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 681 (1998).

      Based on the court’s findings, there was no need to apply the Bevill test—a test

designed to assess a corporate officer’s communications with corporate counsel. The

trial court found that Holland & Knight was not acting as corporate counsel but

instead as joint defense counsel for a number of clients including Hurysh. Based on

that finding, the trial court properly determined that Hurysh jointly held the

attorney–client privilege with respect to the July 22 call and that Hurysh “therefore

may opt to waive the privilege if he so desires.”

      We emphasize that our holding today is fact specific and does not diminish the

                                          -11-
                              HOWARD V. IOMAXIS, LLC

                                    Opinion of the Court

ability of corporate counsel to preserve the corporation’s attorney–client privilege

when communicating with corporate directors, officers, and employees. There are

many steps that corporations and their counsel can take to avoid factual disputes

over the scope of counsel’s legal advice.

      Most obviously, counsel can choose not to jointly represent both the corporation

and the individual directors, officers, or employees as counsel did in this case through

the litigation engagement letter. But even when counsel chooses to do so, there are

ways to avoid the factual confusion that arose here. For example, an engagement

letter can identify the particular attorneys within the firm who are handling a joint

litigation defense and separately identify the corporate attorneys who are handling

the general legal affairs of the company. The letter can then inform the jointly

represented parties that any legal advice from the corporate attorneys is solely for

the company, not the individuals.

       Similarly, a corporate attorney speaking to officers or employees of the

company can offer a clear disclaimer of representation, emphasizing that counsel

represents the corporation for purposes of the discussion; that the communications

are covered by an attorney–client privilege held solely by the company; and that the

participants must consult their own counsel if they seek personal legal advice about

the subject matter.

      None of this took place here, thus creating a factual dispute about the scope of

Holland & Knight’s representation on the July 22 call. The trial court resolved that

                                            -12-
                              HOWARD V. IOMAXIS, LLC

                                   Opinion of the Court

factual dispute by making findings in favor of Hurysh. Those findings are supported

by competent evidence, and the trial court’s resulting determination that Hurysh held

the attorney–client privilege was well within the trial court’s sound discretion. We

therefore affirm the trial court’s order.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            -13-