Court Opinion

ID: 9709058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:39:14.536635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:45.308582
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
concurring in result.
I would restrict the holding as to the availability of the attorney-client privilege to the particular corporate context of this case and hold that where a corporation and its officers are charged with actions inimical to the interests of stockholders, the fiduciary obligations owed to stockholders are stronger than the policy favoring privileged communications, and that the facts in this case establish good cause for holding that the attorney-client privilege was not available here. See, Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F. 2d 1093 (5th Cir., 1970), cert. den. 401 U. S. 974, 91 S. Ct. 1191, 28 L. Ed. 2d 323; In re Transocean Tender Offer Securities Litigation, 78 FRD 692 (N. D. Ill., 1978).
Although the language of section 27-503 (4) (a), R. R. S. 1943, is specific, nevertheless a holding that the lawyer-client privilege is not available in any case where the attorney’s services are obtained in order to commit or plan to commit what the client knew to be fraud is far too broad.
Kuns, Retired District Judge, joins in this concurrence.