Client Confidentiality & Privilege

A wealthy client invited his attorney to visit the client's lavish home, so that they could update the client's will and other estate planning instruments. They updated these documents every year. On this occasion, a few others were present during their conversation about the client's estate planning issues: the client's longtime business partner, the client's new girlfriend, a housekeeper, one of the client's grown children, and the client's personal physician, who had stopped by for a social visit. Two individuals would be necessary to witness the execution of an updated will, so the attorney was glad to have others present. During the conversation, as an aside, the business partner mentioned some upcoming litigation that was in the news, a lawsuit between a major insurance carrier and a pharmaceutical company related to the current epidemic in opioid abuse. No one present was a party to the anticipated litigation, but many investors were following it with great interest. Afterward, the attorney wrote personal notes about the meeting, including who was present and what each person had said. A year later, the client died, and litigation ensued over the client's estate. Which of the following would apply to the attorney's notes and mental recollections about the conversation with the client and others that were present? a) The attorney's ethical duty of confidentiality to the client. b) The attorney work product doctrine. c) Attorney-client privilege. d) A duty of loyalty to the others present.

a) The attorney's ethical duty of confidentiality to the client.

An attorney sometimes recorded his interviews with clients, after obtaining permission from the client, especially when the client was recounting a long narrative about events that transpired, which had given rise to litigation. The opposing party in one lawsuit sought discovery of the recording of the client's narrative of the events to the attorney. Which of the following is most likely to result in the recording being discoverable? a) The client played the recording at home for his friend to get his advice and input. b) There was good reason to believe that the client had told contradictory versions of the story on different occasions. c) The client has died and is unavailable to testify at trial. d) The lawsuit involved some criminal behavior by the client at some point.

a) The client played the recording at home for his friend to get his advice and input.

The police arrested Professor Stevenson and would not permit him to communicate directly with his attorney. Professor Stevenson asked his longtime friend and confidant, Sisyphus, to convey to his attorney that the attorney should not permit the police to search Professor Stevenson's home. Later, the prosecution calls the friend to testify about the contents of the message he related from Stevenson to his attorney. The attorney claims this information is privileged. How should the court rule? a) The contents of the message transmitted through the friend are privileged and therefore both undiscoverable and inadmissible at trial, because the friend was acting as an agent of the client. b) The contents of the message are not privileged because the client disclosed them to a third party to transmit the information to the attorney. c) The attorney waived privilege for the information by receiving it from a third party without the client present. d) The friend has a right to testify and disclose the information if he chooses, but neither the client nor the attorney should have to disclose it themselves.

a) The contents of the message transmitted through the friend are privileged and therefore both undiscoverable and inadmissible at trial, because the friend was acting as an agent of the client.

An attorney is representing a corporate client on a variety of litigation matters. The attorney receives a subpoena (compulsory process) for information and a document relating to one of her corporate clients. The attorney promptly produces the information and document required by the subpoena, and then informs the client. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for this action? a) Yes, because she did not consult first with the client before making the disclosure. b) Yes, because it was incompetent for her to believe that a subpoena could have legal force binding a corporate entity, as opposed to individuals. c) No, because the client is a corporation, not an individual. d) No, because she was acting under a subpoena.

a) Yes, because she did not consult first with the client before making the disclosure.

An attorney works for a state-operated legal aid clinic, which under a state statute counts as a social service agency. The state has a mandatory reporting law for child abuse, which statutorily requires employees of social service agencies to report any instances of child abuse they discover among their clients or constituents. The attorney met with a prospective client and her child to discuss potential representation at a welfare termination hearing. The prospective client did not meet the agency's guidelines to be eligible for free legal representation, however, so the attorney had to decline the case. Nevertheless, it was evident during the interview that the prospective client's child was the subject of serious physical abuse - a black eye, cigarette burns on her arms and neck, bruises on the backs of her legs, and a demeanor of cowering in fear around adults. The attorney wanted to talk to the mother about it, but the attorney has been unable to reach her since declining to represent her. Must the attorney report the prospective client for child abuse? a) Yes, because state law requires the disclosure, and a lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer has a reasonable belief that it is necessary to comply with other law. b) Yes, because the mother was only a prospective client who was ineligible for representation by the attorney, so the attorney owed her no duty of confidentiality. c) No, because the exceptions to the duty of confidentiality merely permit disclosure, so the attorney "may" report the incident, but there is no duty to do so. d) No, because the attorney met the prospective client only once, and does not know if the abuse occurred at the hands of her mother, or if the child was the victim of a crime at the hands of someone else, and it is not the mother's fault.

a) Yes, because state law requires the disclosure, and a lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer has a reasonable belief that it is necessary to comply with other law.

A large auto dealer retains an attorney to represent him in a bankruptcy case. This attorney's firm represents a bank, through which the client has several large loans that covered loans for the dealership. The loans are all contained in the bankruptcy. The attorney is concerned about whether there is a conflict, so he contacts a lawyer friend of his. While explaining his dilemma, the attorney tells the friend the name of the dealer. Is the attorney subject to discipline? a) Yes, because the attorney disclosed more than what details were necessary to accomplish his purpose. b) Yes, because attorneys shall not discuss client matters with other lawyers not also serving as counsel for their client. c) No, because attorneys may discuss their cases with other lawyers to ensure they are following the rules of professional conduct. d) No, because the restrictions regarding confidentiality only apply in criminal cases.

a) Yes, because the attorney disclosed more than what details were necessary to accomplish his purpose.

Conglomerate Corporation has several overseas facilities, and a mid-level manager at one of these locations bribed local government officials to obtain lucrative government contracts. The matter came to the attention of Conglomerate's top management and Board, who recognized that the incident was an egregious violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. An internal corporate investigation of the matter ensued, and the corporation's directors asked their inhouse General Counsel to send written inquiries to the wrongdoer's counterparts in each of its overseas branches, asking whether similar payments or bribes were occurring elsewhere. After reviewing the responses to these inquiries and following up with phone calls and meetings, the corporate directors self-reported any questionable transactions to the relevant federal agencies. When one of those agencies brought an enforcement action against Conglomerate Corporation, the Department of Justice lawyers sought discovery of all the original written responses to these internal inquiries. The corporate directors and General Counsel refused, claiming that the information was privileged. Should Conglomerate Corporation be able to resist production of these documents as privileged? a) Yes, because the corporate directors requested the information from the in-house attorney, and the information was work-related, and was necessary for obtaining legal advice b) Yes, because providing the information to an attorney made privilege attach. c) No, because the inquiries and written responses are underlying facts in the case, and therefore not covered by attorney-client privilege. d) No, because lower level employees at a corporation, who play no part in controlling the corporate decision making, do not count as part of the "client" for purposes of attorney-client privilege.

a) Yes, because the corporate directors requested the information from the in-house attorney, and the information was work-related, and was necessary for obtaining legal advice.

An attorney's client was a member of a drug cartel that imported and distributed illegal narcotics. The client promised the other cartel members that the client would provide anyone in the cartel with legal representation whenever the need arose. The client then offered the attorney a generous monthly retainer if the attorney would stand ready to provide legal services whenever the client or the cartel associates encountered legal difficulties during the operation of the cartel. In a confidential communication that would normally otherwise qualify as privileged, the client told the attorney the identities of the other cartel members. The client continued the cartel operations for some time after this communication. Would government lawyers, in a subsequent law enforcement action, be able to compel the attorney to disclose the identities of the other cartel members? a) Yes, the crime-fraud exception renders nonprivileged the communications between the client and the attorney, including identification of the client's confederates. b) Yes, because the other members of the cartel are not clients of the attorney. c) No, the conversation was a confidential communication between a client and a lawyer to obtain legal services. d) No, the privilege belongs to the client, so the government lawyers should instead subpoena the client to reveal the contents of the communication.

a) Yes, the crime-fraud exception renders nonprivileged the communications between the client and the attorney, including identification of the client's confederates.

An attorney heard from one of his clients in county jail that the client's cellmate did not have a lawyer, so the attorney sent a message offering to represent him, and the cellmate agreed and hired the attorney. The new client was under investigation for a variety of financial crimes, so the attorney hired a private financial forensics investigator to assess the client's potential criminal liability. This investigation, conducted at the behest of the attorney, involved the investigator interviewing the client alone for over an hour about certain bank transfers and backdated checks. Later, the prosecutor subpoenaed the private financial forensics investigator to testify at the criminal proceedings against the client, and the investigator refused to answer any questions about the conversation with the defendant. Would attorney-client privilege apply to the investigator's private conversation with the attorney's client? a) Yes, because the investigator was acting as an agent of the attorney, and the conversation was a confidential communication with a client for the purpose of obtaining legal services. b) Yes, but only if the attorney in fact reviewed a recording or transcript of the conversation afterward, which would make the investigator his proxy-after-the-fact. c) No, because the attorney solicited the client, offering to represent him in a manner that violated the solicitation rules, which voided the subsequent claim of attorney-client privilege. d) No, because the attorney was not present during the non-lawyer investigator's conversation with the client.

a) Yes, because the investigator was acting as an agent of the attorney, and the conversation was a confidential communication with a client for the purpose of obtaining legal services.

Conglomerate Corporation's recent litigation has received unfavorable media attention, so the corporate directors have hired a public relations firm (Afflatus, Inc.) to handle media relations and help boost the company's image. The directors have also asked their attorney, who is handling their litigation, to meet with the Afflatus staff, explaining the company's litigation position and how to answer media inquiries without giving statements that might bind the corporation to a disadvantageous legal position. The attorney opened his presentation with a declaration that the meeting was confidential, and that some of the information shared would be privileged. A few months later, the opposing party learns that this meeting occurred and seeks discovery of the PowerPoint slides the attorney used in the presentation to the public relations firm. Given these facts, would these the slides be discoverable at trial? a) Yes, because the public relations firm is not the client. b) Yes, because attorney-client privilege would apply only to discussions at the meeting, not to the PowerPoint slides, which anyone could forward to individuals who were not at the private meeting. c) No, because the communication was private, between a lawyer and an agent of the client at the client's direction, and it related to litigation. d) No, because the lawyers explained at the beginning of the private meeting that the contents of their presentation would be privileged and confidential.

a) Yes, because the public relations firm is not the client.

Walter White conferred confidentially with his attorney, Saul Goodman, about how to resolve a specific legal problem. Attorney Goodman suggested shredding documents and hiring some thugs to beat up the other party in the matter, leaving them with a warning to stay away from Walter White. White, the client, proceeds with this plan. Later, when White faces criminal prosecution for the assault-for-hire, the prosecutor seeks disclosure of any conversations he had with his attorney about hiring thugs to carry out the assault. Predictably, Attorney Goodman argues that the conversation comes under the protection of attorney-client privilege. Is the prosecutor correct to demand disclosure? a) Yes, given these facts, the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege would potentially apply. b) Yes, because attorney-client privilege normally does not apply in criminal prosecutions. c) No, the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege in this case would mean that the conversation was not discoverable. d) The privilege belongs to Attorney Goodman in this case, so he can decide whether to make the disclosure without conferring with his client.

a) Yes, given these facts, the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege would potentially apply.

A client kept in his files an old memorandum that the client had prepared for his attorney during an earlier representation by the attorney. After some time, the client takes the memorandum to another lawyer, in confidence, to obtain legal services on a different matter. The memorandum qualified as a privileged communication in the earlier matter. While in the hands of the new lawyer, does the memorandum remain under the protection of privilege? a) Yes, privilege still applies to the document due to its originally privileged nature. b) Yes, because once privilege attaches to a document, it remains privileged permanently. c) No, the client waived privilege by showing it to another lawyer. d) No, the privilege for the communication with the first attorney ended when the client switched to another lawyer

a) Yes, privilege still applies to the document due to its originally privileged nature.

An attorney specialized in criminal defense work, and at one point she agreed to represent a client who was multiple charges for gang-related criminal activities. While the client was in county lockup, inmates there from a rival gang assaulted him, necessitating his hospitalization. The attorney visited her client in the hospital to discuss a pending plea offer from the prosecutor. Both the client and the attorney believed, with good reason, that they were having a confidential conversation. Unbeknownst to them, however, a doctor was eavesdropping on their conversation, and the doctor subsequently contacted the prosecutor and repeated the entire conversation. Armed with this new evidence, the prosecutor revoked the pending plea offer, proceeded with the prosecution, and called the doctor to testify at trial about the conversation. The attorney argued that her conversation with her client came under attorney-client privilege and was therefore inadmissible at trial. Is the attorney correct in this assertion? a) Yes, the attorney and the defendant were reasonable in believing that the conversation was confidential. b) Yes, the information relates to the attorney's representation of the defendant. c) No, the fact that a third party heard the conversation waived attorney-client privilege. d) No, in overhearing the conversation, the doctor did not engage in illegal conduct.

a) Yes, the attorney and the defendant were reasonable in believing that the conversation was confidential.

An attorney agreed to represent a client who suffered from severe mental illness that had resulted in his institutionalization. The client complained that the staff mistreated her and wanted the attorney to litigate. At the end of this litigation, the court appointed a family member as the legal guardian for the client and her assets. Subsequently, a question arose concerning the client's ownership rights in certain intellectual property, and the attorney agreed to represent the interests of the client in the property. The client's legal guardian participates in the conversations between the attorney and the client, and he serves as an intermediary for confidential correspondence or messages between the client and the attorney. Would attorney-client privilege still apply to these communications, if the guardian is present or serves as an intermediary? a) Yes, the legal guardian is necessary for rendering legal services to the client, and functions as the client's agent in this scenario. b) Yes, privilege applies to the oral communications, but not to messages relayed by the guardian between the client and the attorney. c) No, privilege does not apply to legal incompetent clients. d) No, the presence of the third-party guardian waives privilege for these communications.

a) Yes, the legal guardian is necessary for rendering legal services to the client, and functions as the client's agent in this scenario.

An attorney was a partner at Big Firm, which represented Conglomerate Corporation in their corporate merger negotiations with Giant Company. Big Firm had state-of-the-art network firewalls, virus protection, password protection, and other data security features in place. Nevertheless, one Friday evening some hackers managed to breach Big Firm's networks and access client information and partner emails, for purposes of engaging in insider trading. The firm detected the breach within a few hours and notified state and federal law enforcement. The stock exchange had closed for the weekend, and law enforcement managed to apprehend the hackers over the weekend, before they had a chance to review the stolen information and share useful data or engage in illegal stock trades. The clients suffered no losses or adverse effects, but they could have. The partners at Big Firm maintain that they should not be subject to discipline for failure to protect their clients' confidential information, because they had all the latest data security measures in place, though technology is constantly changing. Are they correct? a) Yes, unauthorized access to, or disclosure of, client information does not constitute a violation of the Model Rules if the lawyer has made reasonable efforts to prevent the access or disclosure. b) Yes, even if their network security was inadequate, the clients did not in fact suffer any harm to their legal or commercial interests, and the firm responded to the incident promptly enough. c) No, a firm's competence in preserving a client's confidentiality is a strict liability standard that requires the lawyer to be invulnerable or impenetrable. d) No, it depends on whether the customers had the level of protection they expected when they hired the firm to represent them.

a) Yes, unauthorized access to, or disclosure of, client information does not constitute a violation of the Model Rules if the lawyer has made reasonable efforts to prevent the access or disclosure.

A client confidentially delivered his own business records to his attorney, who specializes in tax matters, to obtain the attorney's legal advice about taxes. The business records were routine bookkeeping files, not prepared for obtaining legal advice. When the IRS eventually brought an enforcement action against the client and sought production of the business records that the client had provided to the attorney, the attorney asserted that attorney-client privileged protected them from disclosure. Is the attorney correct? a) Yes, the records gain privileged status by the fact that the client delivered them privately to the attorney to obtain legal advice. b) No, the records gain no privileged status by the fact that the client delivered them to the attorney to obtain legal advice. c) Privilege applies to the records only if the client was anticipating litigation at the time he gave them to the attorney, as opposed to seeking advice about claiming deductions and exemptions. d) Privilege does not apply if the client committed a crime or tax fraud.

b) No, the records gain no privileged status by the fact that the client delivered them to the attorney to obtain legal advice.

An insurance company retained an attorney to defend both the insured employer and one of its employees, whose conduct is at issue and for which the employer might be vicariously liable. During a private consultation with the attorney, the employee recounts some facts about the incident that are self incriminating. In fact, the confidential information that the employee shared with the attorney suggests that the employee was acting outside the scope of his employment at the time, and his actions were also outside the scope of the employer's insurance coverage. The employee had a reasonable belief that he had client-lawyer relationship with the attorney, and the employee did not understand the legal implications of his admissions. In subsequent interviews with other witnesses, the attorney corroborated this information. It appeared to the attorney that the insurance company could have a contractual right to deny coverage for the employee's conduct, and the employer could invoke scope-ofemployment principles to defend against its own liability to the plaintiff. What would the ethical rules require the attorney to do under these circumstances? a) The attorney must disclose the information to the other clients in the representation, that is, the insurer and the employer, because the facts directly impact their legal rights and liabilities. b) The attorney cannot disclose the information to anyone, and must withdraw from representing the employer, the employee, and the insurer. c) The attorney must make a "noisy withdrawal" from representing the employee and the employer, disaffirming any previous statements, information, or opinions rendered in the matter. d) The attorney should reveal only enough information to obtain informed, written consent from the insurer and the employer to continue representing all three in the matter.

b) The attorney cannot disclose the information to anyone, and must withdraw from representing the employer, the employee, and the insurer.

Professor Stevenson was walking alone through a high-crime neighborhood late at night, carrying his briefcase, which contained copies of confidential and privileged correspondence between the Professor Stevenson and his attorney. Robbers mugged Professor Stevenson and ran off with his briefcase, which they soon discarded when they discovered that it contained no cash or valuables. The police recovered the briefcase, but to identify its owner, they opened it and read the documents. Some of the documents were very incriminating, so the police turned them over to the district attorney. Professor Stevenson and his attorney claim attorney-client privilege protects the documents from admission as evidence in any criminal proceedings, but the prosecution claims privilege disappeared when the police had a good reason to inspect the contents of a lost briefcase. Which side is correct? a) The prosecutor is correct that attorney-client privilege no longer protects the documents, now that they easily available exposed to the public. b) The attorney is correct that privilege would still apply, and the documents are inadmissible. c) It depends on whether the brief case remained locked when the police recovered it. d) It depends on whether Professor Stevenson told the robbers that the documents in his brief case came under attorney-client privilege.

b) The attorney is correct that privilege would still apply, and the documents are inadmissible.

An attorney handled the estate planning for an elderly client, which included the creation of a spendthrift trust, with the client's grandchildren as the beneficiaries. The trust document stipulated that disbursements to the beneficiaries were discretionary until they reach the age of 25. The client has now died, and the attorney who drafted the trust document for the client serves as the trustee. The beneficiaries, ages 21-23, have sued, seeking larger and more frequent disbursements from the trust. During discover, the plaintiffs request production of all documents relating to the creation of the trust and the testator's intentions about disbursements - emails and memoranda between the deceased client and the attorney. The attorney, now the trustee, claims that these communications come under the protection of attorney-client privilege. How should the court rule? a) The court should compel disclosure because it was improper for the same attorney to draft the trust document giving the trustee discretion about disbursements, and then serve as the trustee himself. b) The court should compel disclosure because attorney-client privilege normally does not apply in disputes between trustees and beneficiaries. c) The court should apply the privilege to these documents because they were confidential communications between a client and his lawyer, seeking legal advice and representation. d) The court should apply the privilege because the trust document itself is controlling, and the requested documents are immaterial to the litigation.

b) The court should compel disclosure because attorney-client privilege normally does not apply in disputes between trustees and beneficiaries.

A small independent soda company had a delivery truck that collided with a school bus full of children on a field trip. The company's owner and the driver, who were co-defendants in the first lawsuit over the incident, met with their litigation attorney - the owner agreed to pay the fees for representing both. As they were discussing the accident, the attorney called in his own accident scene investigator to join the discussion, and the investigator took notes. As the litigation progressed, the driver eventually filed a crossclaim against the owner for indemnification if the driver has to pay damages to the plaintiff. At that point, the driver sought to depose the attorney's accident investigator to have him testify about the admissions the owner made in the previous conversation. The owner objected. How is the court likely to rule? a) The deposition can go forward, and the investigator's disclosures will be admissible, because his presence in the conversation as a non-client waived attorney-client privilege for the others. b) The deposition can go forward, and the investigator's disclosures will be admissible, because the driver and the owner are now adverse parties in the litigation. c) The conversation comes under the protection of attorney client privilege because at the time it occurred, the driver and owner were both clients and the investigator was there to assist the attorney. d) The investigator's notes will be admissible, even if the participants in the conversation do not have to disclose what they said.

b) The deposition can go forward, and the investigator's disclosures will be admissible, because the driver and the owner are now adverse parties in the litigation.

The parents of an autistic child submitted a complaint to a vaccine manufacturer, claiming that its early childhood inoculation for Mumps-MeaslesRubella had caused the child's autism. The vaccine producer referred the complaint to its legal department. Its in-house counsel investigated the complaint, and eventually concluded that the matter posed no legal issues for the company, because of a federal statute that shields vaccine manufacturers from tort liability, which in turn would preempt any lawsuits in state courts. The attorney wrote a legal memorandum to the company's management describing his research and conclusions. He included in the memorandum a section about the alleged facts, and another section presenting the legal analysis. If the parents of the child later file a lawsuit anyway, would the facts that the attorney's memorandum included be discoverable, and admissible at a subsequent trial? a) Yes, because the lawyer who wrote the memorandum was in-house counsel at the manufacturer, so the company never communicated with an outside law firm seeking legal advice. b) Yes, because attorney-client privilege does not apply to underlying facts, even if those facts were under discussion in an otherwise privileged communication c) No, because a state statute shielded the manufacturer from liability for injuries from this type of product. d) No, because the communication was part of a private communication between a lawyer and a client who was seeking legal advice.

b) Yes, because attorney-client privilege does not apply to underlying facts, even if those facts were under discussion in an otherwise privileged communication.

An accountant advised Professor Stevenson to consult a lawyer about a legal problem involving complex questions of tax accounting. Professor Stevenson is easily distractible, and he and does not fully understand the nature of the accounting questions, and he asks his accountant to accompany him to a consultation with his attorney so that the accountant can explain the nature of Professor Stevenson's legal matter to the attorney. The accountant helps to explain the attorney's legal advice in business or accounting terms more understandable to Professor Stevenson. Would attorney-client privilege still protect these consultations against subsequent discovery by government lawyers in a tax enforcement action against Professor Stevenson? a) Yes, because the client and the attorney consented to having the accountant present. b) Yes, because the accountant is acting as the client's agent in this scenario, just as if her were a foreign language interpreter. c) No, the presence of the accountant means the conversation was not confidential and privilege did not attach to the conversation. d) No, because the accountant suggested that the client consult the attorney in the first place, so the client was not the true initiator of the conversation.

b) Yes, because the accountant is acting as the client's agent in this scenario, just as if her were a foreign language interpreter.

A customer-review website allows its users to post online reviews of lawyers whose services they have used, and there is little or no content moderation by the operators of the site. A client posted a negative review of her attorney's services that was harsh, unfair, and partly untrue. The client's negative review alleged, among other things, that her attorney had overcharged her and had unreasonably high fees in the first place. The attorney posted a response saying that the fees were in fact much lower than normal legal fees for that type of work, and that the client had never even paid her fees, and still owed the attorney a large sum. Could the attorney be subject to discipline for posting a response that included some facts about the representation, to counter the former client's lies? a) Yes, because lawyers may not disclose confidential information related to a representation merely to establish a claim or defense in a controversy with the client. b) Yes, because the attorney disclosed confidential information about the representation without client authorization, and a negative online review is not enough to implicate the exception for establishing a claim or defense in a controversy with the client. c) No, the Model Rules permit a lawyer to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client. d) No, a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is necessary to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer.

b) Yes, because the attorney disclosed confidential information about the representation without client authorization, and a negative online review is not enough to implicate the exception for establishing a claim or defense in a controversy with the client.

Small Firm is considering hiring an attorney, who currently works for Big Firm, in a lateral move. The attorney is a transactional lawyer, so none of the information he possesses is "privileged" in that it was not in anticipation of litigation. To facilitate the checks for conflicts of interest, the attorney discloses to Small Firm the clients he has represented while at Big Firm. This includes the names of persons and issues involved in the matters, as well as names and issues for matters handled by other lawyers in the firm about which the attorney had overheard or otherwise acquired some confidential information. Small Firm uses the information solely for checking about potential conflicts of interest before making an offer of employment to the attorney. The attorney did not ask any of the clients for authorization to disclose the representation or the nature of the issues involved in their matters. Was it proper for the attorney to disclose this confidential information without the consent of the clients? a) Yes, so long as the attorney informs the clients subsequently that such disclosures have occurred. b) Yes, because the attorney disclosed the information solely to detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyer's change of employment. c) No, because the attorney did not obtain consent or authorization from the clients before disclosing this information. d) No, because the attorney disclosed not only the clients that he himself represented, but also clients of other lawyers in his firm.

b) Yes, because the attorney disclosed the information solely to detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyer's change of employment.

An attorney met a small business proprietor at a social event, and the proprietor mentioned that he routinely hires lawyers for lease and contract issues. The attorney offered to provide representation for such matters in the future, and gave him his business card, and the proprietor called the next day to engage the attorney to provide these types of legal services. The new client later dropped of boxes of files with documents relating to the matters that the attorney was handling. A few weeks into the representation, the attorney noticed some serious discrepancies and legal issues while reviewing the documents in one of the boxes, and he sent the client an email explaining that he might face regulatory fines and even criminal sanctions if the client did not resolve the matter immediately. The client sent a reply email directing the attorney to shred the entire contents of that box of files, and he did so. A year later, law enforcement officials investigated the client and sought to compel disclosure of the emails between the client and the attorney regarding the boxes of files, including the now-missing files. The attorney claimed attorney-client privilege for the private email communications he had with his client. Should a court compel the production of the emails? a) Yes, because the privilege belongs to the client, so only the client could assert it, not the attorney. b) Yes, because the communications, though confidential, were in furtherance of committing a crime or fraud. c) No, the communication comes squarely under the protection of attorney-client privilege. d) No, the producing the emails would violate the client's right against self-incrimination and the attorney's duty of confidentiality.

b) Yes, because the communications, though confidential, were in furtherance of committing a crime or fraud.

A client who spoke only Spanish hired a local attorney who spoke English and no other languages. The client used an interpreter to communicate an otherwise privileged message to the attorney. The interpreter was an acquaintance of the client. The opposing party later tried to have the interpreter testify at trial about the contents of the conversation he interpreted. The attorney objected that the information falls under the protection of attorney-client privilege. Is the attorney correct? a) Yes, but only if the interpreter signed a nondisclosure agreement and understood that the conversation was privileged. b) Yes, because the interpreter acted as an agent of the client in facilitating the provision of legal services. c) No, the interpreter was unnecessary, because a client could easily find another lawyer who speaks Spanish. d) No, because the client and attorney had the conversation in the presence of a third party, thereby waiving privilege.

b) Yes, because the interpreter acted as an agent of the client in facilitating the provision of legal services.

Attorney Stevenson works in-house as General Counsel for Conglomerate Corporation. Conglomerate's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) resigned suddenly. Due to his background in corporate finance and economics, Conglomerate's Board of Directors asked Attorney Stevenson to serve temporarily as the acting Chief Financial Officer, until they could find a permanent replacement to fill the position. Attorney Stevenson divided his time evenly between corporate financial operations and legal tasks for the company, such as contract review, regulatory compliance, and supervising the outside firms that handle the company's litigation. His financial responsibilities at Conglomerate included reviewing financial reports and forecasts, investment strategy proposals, and various emails or memoranda relating to the firm's financial affairs. An opposing party in antitrust litigation against the corporation seeks to compel production of some of Attorney Stevenson's financial reports and strategy proposals, but he claims these come under attorney-client privilege, as he simultaneously serves as the in-house lawyer for Conglomerate Corporation. Are the documents discoverable at trial? a) Yes, because there is no indication that the attorney marked these documents as "privileged and confidential" at the time of drafting. b) Yes, because these are business communications, not legal advice from the lawyer to the client. c) No, because these are internal communications are between corporate managers and their inhouse counsel. d) No, because assuming the documents were not available to all the lower-level employees at the company.

b) Yes, because these are business communications, not legal advice from the lawyer to the client.

A client consults an attorney about the client's indictment for the crimes of theft and unlawful possession of stolen goods. Applicable law treats possession of stolen goods as a continuing offense. The client is still hiding the stolen items in a secret place, and the client asks the attorney about how the client might lawfully return the stolen items. The prosecutor then tries to subpoena the attorney to testify about conversation. Would attorney-client privilege apply to the conversation if the client's crime is still ongoing? a) Yes, privilege covers all communications between an attorney and a client. b) Yes, confidential communications about ways in which Client might lawfully return the stolen goods to their owner are privileged. c) No, the crime-fraud exception defeats attorney-client privilege for this conversation, as the crime is still ongoing. d) No, attorney-client privilege does not apply until the representation has ended.

b) Yes, confidential communications about ways in which Client might lawfully return the stolen goods to their owner are privileged

A client consults an attorney about the client's indictment for the crimes of theft and unlawful possession of stolen goods. Applicable law treats possession of stolen goods as a continuing offense. The client is still hiding the stolen items in a secret place. The prosecutor then tries to subpoena the attorney to testify about the conversations with the client regarding the charges and the legal proceedings. Would attorney-client privilege apply to the conversation if the client's crime is still ongoing? a) Yes, privilege covers all communications between an attorney and a client. b) Yes, privilege covers the confidential communications between the attorney and the client regarding the indictment for theft and possession. c) No, the crime-fraud exception defeats attorney-client privilege if the crime is still ongoing. d) No, attorney-client privilege does not apply until the representation has ended.

b) Yes, privilege covers the confidential communications between the attorney and the client regarding the indictment for theft and possession.

An attorney drafted a confidential email to a client offering legal advice on a tax matter. The client had sought the attorney's legal opinion on the question. The attorney's answer relied partly on information that the client had provided, partly on information the attorney himself obtained from third parties, and partly on the attorney's own legal research on Westlaw. When the IRS later brought an enforcement action against the client, the government lawyers sought discover of this email, hoping to find useful evidence about the defendant's financial activities and whether the defendant had knowingly violated the tax code. Can the government lawyers obtain the email through discovery? a) The portions of the email relying on information from third parties is discoverable, but the parts relying on the client's information or the attorney's own research are privileged. b) Both the attorney and the client would have to disclose the email or testify its contents. c) Neither the attorney nor the client would have to disclose or testify about any of its contents. d) The client does not have to disclose the email, but the attorney would have to produce it if he still has it.

c) Neither the attorney nor the client would have to disclose or testify about any of its contents.

An attorney is a partner in a seven-lawyer firm. The client retained the attorney to handle his workers' compensation matter. Yet the attorney did not discuss with the client that he would normally disclose to the other partners in the firm some of the details about his cases and clients. At the weekly meeting of the partners, as everyone discussed their pending cases, the attorney explained the client's case and solicited input from the partners. One partner had an ingenious suggestion that would have been quite helpful to the client's case. The attorney mentioned to the client in their next phone call that one of his partners had made a brilliant suggestion that could turn the case in the client's favor. The client was upset that the attorney had discussed the case with anyone else. Is the client correct that the attorney should not have discussed the case with the others at the firm? a) Yes, because a lawyer has a duty to preserve the confidentiality of client information, even from other lawyers in his law firm, unless the client expressly authorizes disclosure. b) Yes, because the disclosure automatically created potential conflicts of interest for the other lawyers in the firm who might represent clients with adverse interests to this client. c) No, because lawyers in a firm may disclose to each other information relating to a client of the firm, unless the client has instructed that certain information be available only to specified lawyers. d) No, because in this case the disclosure yielded a brilliant suggestion from another lawyer that was immensely helpful to the case, which offsets any potential injury to the client from the disclosure.

c) No, because lawyers in a firm may disclose to each other information relating to a client of the firm, unless the client has instructed that certain information be available only to specified lawyers

An attorney prepared the policy manuals for a corporate client, an insurance company. The manuals guide the client's claims adjusters about claims reporting procedures, such as assigning counsel, closing files, reporting bad-faith claims, maintaining records, settlement authority, and so forth. These attorney-drafted policies served the purpose of facilitating the rendition of competent claims handling by the insurer's employees. When a litigation opponent requests production of these manuals during pre-trial discovery, would they come under attorney-client privilege? a) Yes, because the attorney prepared them on behalf of the client, at the client's request. b) Yes, because the attorney prepared them as part of rendering legal services to the client, and the manuals were for internal, nonpublic use by the insurance adjusters. c) No, because attorney-client privilege applies only to conversations, not to written documents. d) No, because the documents were not part of rendering legal advice, but rather for the employees to use in processing claims, and they were not confidential enough to create privilege.

d) No, because the documents were not part of rendering legal advice, but rather for the employees to use in processing claims, and they were not confidential enough to create privilege.

An attorney represented a personal injury plaintiff in a lawsuit. While trying to find potential witnesses to support the client's litigation claims and personal credibility, the attorney met with several people neighbors and friends of the client, asking about the incident that injured the client, as well as the client's character and past behavior. One of the client's neighbors told the attorney several disturbing stories about wild parties at the client's house, and disreputable character who frequently visited the home. Later, at trial, the defendant sought to compel the attorney to disclose the information conveyed by the client's neighbors. The attorney objected that this information falls under the attorney-client privilege and is therefore inadmissible. Is the attorney correct in this assertion? a) Yes, because the stories are confidential information related to the representation. b) Yes, assuming the client wants the attorney to keep the information confidential, because the client is the holder of the privilege. c) No, because the information did not come from the client, and therefore attorney client privilege does not apply. d) No, because the attorney-client privilege does not apply during trials, but only to communication outside the courtroom.

c) No, because the information did not come from the client, and therefore attorney client privilege does not apply.

An attorney agreed to represent an underage client in a legal matter. The client was fifteen years old, and the youth's parents were present at the consultations and other meetings with the attorney. Would the presence of the parents during confidential communications between the attorney and the underage client waive the protection of attorney-client privilege for the conversation? a) Yes, because the attorney is discussing confidential matters with a client in the presence of nonclients. b) Yes, unless the parents have previously signed a nondisclosure agreement and understand that they must preserve the privilege on behalf of the client. c) No, because the parents are there to facilitate the representation on behalf of their minor child. d) No, if the parents are paying the attorney's legal fees, then they are co-clients with the minor child.

c) No, because the parents are there to facilitate the representation on behalf of their minor child.

A former employee is suing Conglomerate Corporation. The employee claims that Conglomerate fired him as retaliation for uncovering internal corruption at the company. While he still worked for Conglomerate, the employee had several email exchanges with Conglomerate's in-house counsel about the problems he had uncovered and the consequences for reporting them. Now that litigation has ensued after his termination, he requests production of all his email exchanges with in-house counsel (he no longer has access to the company's email server). Conglomerate's lawyers assert that these conversations are privileged, because the emails were between a Conglomerate employee and its corporate counsel. Would the emails come under the protection of attorney-client privilege, given these facts? a) Yes, if they were confidential exchanges between a corporate employee and corporate counsel seeking legal advice. b) Yes, if the employee had received instructions from his superiors at Conglomerate to email corporate counsel about his concerns. c) No, because the privilege belongs to the client, and the plaintiff here owns the privilege. d) No, one may presume that other individuals have seen the emails, besides the plaintiff and the lawyer by this point.

c) No, because the privilege belongs to the client, and the plaintiff here owns the privilege.

Conglomerate Corporation had an accident occur at one of its chemical manufacturing facilities - a large explosion killed several workers and injured many others. Soon after the incident, at the behest of Conglomerate's corporate managers, the general counsel obtained statements from employees and other witnesses about what happened, memorializing the statements in written form. Later, the family of an employee killed in the accident sued Conglomerate, and the plaintiffs' interrogatories included a demand for the contents of the written statements taken by the corporate general counsel. Must Conglomerate Corporation disclose the statements taken by its attorney after the accident? [pick the best answer] a) Yes, because Conglomerate Corporation is a party to the case. b) Yes, because the statements are relevant to material issues in the litigation. c) No, because the statements are communications protected by the attorney-client privilege. d) No, because the statements are protected work product, and no exceptions could ever apply.

c) No, because the statements are communications protected by the attorney-client privilege.

A client consults an attorney about the client's indictment for the crimes of theft and unlawful possession of stolen goods. Applicable law treats possession of stolen goods as a continuing offense. The client is still hiding the stolen items in a secret place, and the client asks the attorney about in which client can continue to hold onto the stolen goods. During the conversation, the client describes the present location of the stolen items. The prosecutor then tries to subpoena the attorney to testify about the location of the stolen goods. Would attorney-client privilege apply to the conversation if the client's crime is still ongoing? a) Yes, privilege covers all communications between an attorney and a client. b) Yes, privilege covers the confidential communications between the attorney and the client. c) No, the crime-fraud exception defeats attorney-client privilege for this conversation, as the crime is still ongoing. d) No, attorney-client privilege does not apply until the representation has ended.

c) No, the crime-fraud exception defeats attorneyclient privilege for this conversation, as the crime is still ongoing.

An attorney represented a client who was a potential defendant in a personal injury lawsuit. The victim of the accident has threatened the client with litigation unless the client can convince the victim's lawyers that the client is not at fault. The victim also gives a deadline for producing such evidence, after which litigation will proceed. The client authorized the attorney produce a large batch of documents. The attorney reviewed the files before sending, but she overlooked one confidential memorandum by the client to the attorney that was in the batch of documents produced. This oversight occurred even though the attorney conducted a more thorough preproduction review than most lawyers would do - the attorney was not negligent, but the mistake still happened. As soon as the attorney discovered her mistake, she reasserted privilege on behalf of the client for that document. The victim's lawyer claims that the attorney waived privilege by disclosing it, even inadvertently. Which side is correct? a) Opposing counsel is correct that the attorney waived privilege by disclosing the confidential document during discovery. b) Privilege does not apply because the plaintiff has not yet filed a claim in court. c) The attorney who made the inadvertent disclosure, without negligence, can properly reassert privilege. d) Waiver cannot occur because the plaintiff has not yet filed a claim in court.

c) The attorney who made the inadvertent disclosure, without negligence, can properly reassert privilege.

A small independent soda company had a delivery truck that collided with a school bus full of children on a field trip. The company's owner and the driver, who were co-defendants in the first lawsuit over the incident, met with their litigation attorney - the owner agreed to pay the fees for representing them both. As they were discussing the accident, the attorney called in his own accident scene investigator to join the discussion, and the investigator took notes. As the litigation progressed, the driver eventually filed a cross-claim against the owner for indemnification if the driver has to pay damages to the plaintiff. At that point, the plaintiff sought to depose the attorney's accident investigator to discover what admissions the co-defendants made in the previous conversation. The owner objected. How is the court likely to rule? a) The deposition can go forward, and the investigator's disclosures will be admissible, because his presence in the conversation as a non-client waived attorney-client privilege for the others. b) The deposition can go forward, and the investigator's disclosures will be admissible, because the driver and the owner are now adverse parties in the litigation. c) The conversation comes under the protection of attorney client privilege because at the time it occurred, the driver and owner were both clients and the investigator was there to assist the attorney. d) The investigator's notes will be admissible, even if the participants in the conversation do not have to disclose what they said.

c) The conversation comes under the protection of attorney client privilege because at the time it occurred, the driver and owner were both clients and the investigator was there to assist the attorney.

A client consulted with his attorney privately about how to wire funds to an offshore bank account legally, in a manner that would not violate tax laws or draw the attention of federal regulators. The attorney was not aware at the time that his client was engaged in illegal activity, and thought he merely wanted a secure investment. Later, however, the client became the target of a federal prosecution on corruption charges. The prosecution subpoenaed the attorney to answer questions about the conversation with the client regarding wire transfers to offshore accounts. The attorney objected that this was a privileged communication between the client and the attorney. How is the court likely to rule? a) The conversation is privileged, because it was a private conversation between a client and lawyer to obtain legal advice. b) The conversation is privileged, because the attorney was unaware that the client was engaged in illegal conduct. c) The conversation is not privileged because of the client's illegal purpose in seeking the information. d) The conversation is not privileged because it pertained to a business transaction rather than a legal matter.

c) The conversation is not privileged because of the client's illegal purpose in seeking the information.

An attorney represented a defendant in a personal-injury action. The client made a confidential communication to the attorney concerning the circumstances of the accident. Later, in the judicial proceedings, the attorney was conducting direct examination of the client, and the client testified about the occurrence. She did not, however, make any reference in her testimony to what she told the attorney previously about the same matter. When the plaintiff's lawyer began his cross examination of the client, he asked whether the defendant's testimony was consistent with the account she previously gave to her attorney in confidence. The defendant's attorney objects that privilege applies to this conversation, but the plaintiff's lawyer asserts that the defendant waived privilege by discussing the same things in her court testimony. Which one is correct? a) It depends on whether the facts in question would constitute material questions of fact in the case. b) It depends on whether the client claimed attorney-client privilege for all prior conversations with her attorney before she began testifying about the same events. c) The defendant's attorney is correct that his client did not waive attorney-client privilege by testifying regarding the same facts at trial. d) The plaintiff's lawyer is correct that the defendant opened the door by discussing the same events that she previously discussed with her attorney, thereby waiving privilege for the prior conversations.

c) The defendant's attorney is correct that his client did not waive attorney-client privilege by testifying regarding the same facts at trial.

An attorney was the managing partner at a firm. The firm had current, up-to-date network security, firewalls, password protection, anti-virus software, and email encryption. As managing partner, the attorney would revisit this issue every year in January, checking with the relevant vendors to see if there were important software updates or new products that the firm needed. One January, a vendor was installing new software and discovered that the firm had suffered a significant data breach the previous summer that went unnoticed. Hackers had used sophisticated methods to bypass conventional firewalls and other mainstream security features, and they had accessed confidential client information. The vendor explained to the managing partner that there was no reason for such events to go unnoticed, because low-cost products and services were available to monitor for data breaches. Could the firm, or at least the managing partner, be subject to discipline for failing to monitor for any breaches in data security? a) The firm is not subject to discipline, but the clients may demand contractually that the firm constantly monitor for a data breach, and the firm could be liable for malpractice. b) No, the Model Rules require lawyers to have adequate protections against a data security breach, not necessarily to monitor constantly for attacks and breaches. c) Yes, lawyers must employ reasonable efforts to monitor the technology and office resources connected to the internet, external data sources, and external vendors providing services relating to data and the use of data. d) Yes, competence in preserving a client's confidentiality is a strict liability standard and requires the lawyer to be invulnerable or impenetrable

c) Yes, lawyers must employ reasonable efforts to monitor the technology and office resources connected to the internet, external data sources, and external vendors providing services relating to data and the use of data.

A client hired an attorney to represent her in a burglary charge. During a meeting with the attorney and with the understanding that any information would be confidential, the client advised the attorney about a murder she committed. A wrongfully accused man was presently on trial for that same murder. Eventually, the attorney was able to negotiate a plea deal for the client on her burglary charge. They finalized the plea deal and the attorney's representation ended. Soon thereafter, the attorney discovered that a jury had convicted an innocent man for the murder the client had committed and confessed to the attorney. The wrongfully convicted men received a life sentence, without the possibility of parole. The attorney contacted the District Attorney's office that handled the murder trial and left an anonymous tip stating that the client confessed to committing the murder. Was the attorney's conduct proper? a) Yes, because attorneys have a duty to reveal information, even if confidential, that relates to a crime or fraud committed by his client. b) Yes, because attorneys no longer have a duty not to disclose information relating to the representation of a client once the attorney's representation of that client terminates. c) No, because an attorney must not leave such tips anonymously, but must make themselves available for questioning and for testifying if making any tip regarding a crime or fraud committed by one of his clients. d) No, because attorneys cannot disclose client representation information and the death had already occurred, therefore, the disclosure would not prevent certain death or substantial bodily injury.

d) No, because attorneys cannot disclose client representation information and the death had already occurred, therefore, the disclosure would not prevent certain death or substantial bodily injury.

A client had a confidential conversation with his attorney seeking legal advice. The client died a few weeks later. The client had pending litigation at the time of his conversation with the attorney, and the opposing party seeks disclosure of the conversation, because opposing counsel believes the client had instructed the attorney to accept the opposing party's settlement offer, up to a certain amount. The attorney is continuing the claim on behalf of the client's estate, and he refuses to settle or to disclose the contents of the conversation. Should the court compel the attorney to reveal whether the client wanted to settle the case before he died? a) Yes, because the client has absolute control over whether to settle a case or proceed to trial. b) Yes, if the opposing party has some evidence that the deceased client intended to accept the settlement offer that the attorney is now rejecting. c) No, because the decision whether to settle is now up to the decedent's estate. d) No, because privilege normally survives the death of the client.

d) No, because privilege normally survives the death of the client.

Conglomerate Corporation has several offices around the state. After receiving a few employee complaints about workplace discrimination from one office, Conglomerate's corporate officers asked the company's attorney to advise them about potential liability in the matter. The attorney conducted a careful investigation and wrote a thorough memorandum summarizing her findings and legal conclusions. Because the matter involved a commonplace scenario, the attorney thought it would be helpful to give all the company's human resources managers, in each of its offices statewide, guidance about the issue, so she sent the memorandum to all sixty-two HR managers in Conglomerate's offices nationwide. When litigation eventually ensued over the alleged discrimination, the plaintiffs sought discovery of the attorney's memorandum, but Conglomerate attorney asserted attorney-client privilege. Is Conglomerate's position correct? a) Yes, because the communication was part of a private communication between a lawyer and a client who was seeking legal advice. b) Yes, because the memorandum was prepared in anticipated of upcoming litigation, and therefore qualifies as attorney work product. c) No, the attorney was investigating a few separate complaints, so the memorandum did not pertain to any specific lawsuit; rather, it was a general inquiry. d) No, because sending the memorandum to so many employees who had no connection to the matter waived the privilege.

d) No, because sending the memorandum to so many employees who had no connection to the matter waived the privilege.

While representing a client, an attorney learned confidential information about the client's previous marriage and divorce, which occurred many years before in another country. Before the attorney could conclude the matter, the client terminated the representation. Over the next three years, the now former client became a well-known celebrity, and her prior marriage and divorce received widespread public attention in that region. Very recently, the state bar journal interviewed the attorney about his career and his greatest achievements. One question pertained to the representation of the client who became a celebrity. The attorney mentioned that at the time, the client was an unknown figure, and her previous marriage were family secrets. The interviewer was not well-informed about this celebrity and was surprised to hear that the individual had been married and divorced in another country. The former client had never authorized the attorney to discuss her legal matters, but the Model Rules provide a "generally known" exception to the duty of confidentiality to former clients. Would that exception apply to the attorney's disclosure of the marriage and divorce during the interview? a) Yes, because the information received widespread public attention in that area. b) Yes, because the representation ended when the client fired the attorney, and the duty of confidentiality no longer applied. c) No, because the "generally known" exception applies only after the client's death. d) No, because the "generally known" exception does not apply to disclosures by the attorney about former clients.

d) No, because the "generally known" exception does not apply to disclosures by the attorney about former clients

The corporate officers of a large hospital were trying to decide whether to provide free HBO and Showtime (and other subscription cable channels) to all the televisions in the patient rooms. Corporate counsel participated in these meetings due to his familiarity with the pricing of these channels and what other hospitals in the area were doing in this regard. Later, the hospital finds itself in contract litigation with its cable provider, and the opposing party requests disclosure of the comments and discussion in this meeting. The hospital's corporate counsel objects that this meeting was privileged communication because of the participation of the attorney in the meeting. Is he correct? a) Yes, if the meeting was confidential and the hospital has not waived privilege in the meantime. b) Yes, because the participation of corporate counsel in a management meeting ensures that the discussions are privileged. c) No, because the cable company owns the privilege in this case. d) No, because the attorney was participating as a business advisor in this meeting, not providing legal services.

d) No, because the attorney was participating as a business advisor in this meeting, not providing legal services.

Conglomerate Corporation hired outside counsel to represent the organization in a lawsuit, but part way through the representation, Conglomerate's managers decided to fire the attorney and hire someone else with more experience. Conglomerate's former attorney then sued the organization for her unpaid legal fees for the representation up to that point. Conglomerate's new lawyer subpoenaed the attorney's time sheets for the billable hours he claimed to have worked for Conglomerate, because the organization believed the attorney was overbilling. The attorney claimed that the time sheets came under attorney-client privilege and refused to disclose them. Is the attorney correct? a) Yes, the attorney's hourly records are her own work product. b) Yes, because the client and the attorney have become adverse parties in litigation. c) No, because a lawyer cannot invoke privilege without the relevant client's consent. d) No, documents and information about billable hours, scheduling, and so forth are not privileged.

d) No, documents and information about billable hours, scheduling, and so forth are not privileged.

A soda company had a delivery truck that collided with a school bus full of children on a field trip. The soda company's distribution manager wrote a report of the accident and provided it to the company's litigation counsel. The manager did not share the report with anyone except the attorney. When lawsuits from the injured children begin against the company, one of the plaintiffs requests the distribution manager's report. Will a court order the attorney or the company to produce the report during discovery? a) Yes, due to the business records exception to attorney-client privilege. b) Yes, the report constitutes an admission of a party opponent. c) No, because the distribution manager is not one of the corporate directors. d) No, it is privileged communication from a client to a lawyer.

d) No, it is privileged communication from a client to a lawyer.

An attorney represented Conglomerate Corporation. An officer of Conglomerate Corporation communicated in confidence with the attorney about deals between Conglomerate and one of its creditors, Big Bank. Conglomerate later declared bankruptcy, and the court appointed a in bankruptcy for Conglomerate. Then the attorney became a necessary witness in the litigation between Big Bank and Conglomerate's bankruptcy trustee. Conglomerate's trustee in bankruptcy waived privilege on behalf of Conglomerate with respect to testimony by the attorney regarding statements by the officer to the attorney. The officer, knowing that the statements would embarrass or even incriminate him, tried to prevent the attorney from testifying, claiming the conversation was a privileged communication to the corporation's attorney. Big Bank's lawyer responded that former officers and directors of a corporation cannot claim privilege after control of the corporation has passed to a bankruptcy trustee. Should the court side with the officer in this situation? a) Yes, because the officer spoke as the legal agent of Conglomerate in a confidential conversation with Conglomerate's attorney about legal matters of the corporation. b) Yes, because trustees in bankruptcy cannot waive privilege retroactively on behalf of the Corporation and its directors for conversations that occurred before the bankruptcy. c) No, if there is a chance that the communication could incriminate the officer, he can assert privilege under the crime-fraud exception. d) No, the officer cannot assert privilege because he was not a client of the attorney in the representation.

d) No, the officer cannot assert privilege because he was not a client of the attorney in the representation.

An attorney represented a client in a license revocation hearing before an administrative law judge. At one point, the government lawyer asked the client a question about a confidential communication with the client's attorney, and the attorney objected that the conversation clearly came under attorney-client privilege. The administrative law judge overruled the attorney and ordered the client to answer the question, and the client testified about the prior communications with his attorney. On appeal, the attorney claims that the ALJ wrongly overruled his objection and that privilege should in fact apply. The tribunal questioned whether privileged could reattach to a communication after its disclosure, even if the disclosure was the result of an incorrect ruling by a lower tribunal. In subsequent unrelated litigation with another party, opposing counsel seeks to introduce the client's testimony at the administrative hearing that disclosed the information, and the attorney against objects that the original communications were privileged, that he objected to the disclosure at the time, and that the administrative law judge and wrongly overruled his objection. What is the result? a) The appellate tribunal is correct that privilege cannot reattach even if the disclosure was in response to an incorrect ruling by another tribunal, and the disclosure-under-protest also waived privilege for subsequent litigation. b) The appellate tribunal is correct that privilege cannot reattach even if the disclosure was in response to an incorrect ruling by another tribunal, but the wrongfully ordered disclosure did not waive privilege for subsequent litigation. c) The appellate tribunal is incorrect that privilege cannot reattach if the disclosure was in response to an incorrect ruling by another tribunal, but the wrongfully compelled disclosure did indeed waive privilege for subsequent litigation. d) The appellate tribunal is incorrect that privilege cannot reattach even if the disclosure was in response to an incorrect ruling by another tribunal, and the disclosure did not waive privilege for subsequent litigation.

d) The appellate tribunal is incorrect that privilege cannot reattach even if the disclosure was in response to an incorrect ruling by another tribunal, and the disclosure did not waive privilege for subsequent litigation.

An employee of Conglomerate Corporation retained an attorney to advise her about a potential claim against her employer. Like most corporate employees, this client has a cubicle workstation with a computer assigned for her exclusive use at work. Conglomerate Corporation's written internal policy states that the company has a right of access to all employees' computers and e-mail files, including those relating to employees' personal matters. Nevertheless, all the employees sometimes use of their computers for personal matters, and most send some personal e-mail messages, whether from their personal or office e-mail accounts. The attorney expects that the employee will sometimes use her computer at work to communicate with the lawyer. Does the attorney have an affirmative ethical duty to warn the employee about the risks this practice entails? a) The attorney does not need to warn the client because any correspondence between the client and the attorney would have already the protection of attorney-client privilege, even if the employer reads the emails. b) The attorney does not need to warn the client because the pre-existence of the written, internal policy means there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the emails, and therefore the information would not be confidential. c) The attorney has an ethical duty to warn the client, and a duty to warn the employer that the client's communications with her attorney are privileged and exempt from the company's internal policy. d) The attorney has an ethical obligation to warn the client not to communicate about the matter via her work computer through any email account, and a duty to refrain from emailing the client's workplace email account or responding to emails from the client's workplace email account.

d) The attorney has an ethical obligation to warn the client not to communicate about the matter via her work computer through any email account, and a duty to refrain from emailing the client's workplace email account or responding to emails from the client's workplace email account.

An attorney represented Conglomerate Corporation, and she made a confidential report to Conglomerate's CEO, describing Conglomerate's contractual relationship with Supplier Systems, a large vendor. The attorney advised the CEO that Conglomerate could terminate its contract with Supplier without facing any liability. The CEO then sent a confidential memorandum to Conglomerate's purchasing manager, explaining the parts of the attorney's advice necessary for understanding the issue at hand, and asking whether termination of the contract would nonetheless be inappropriate for business reasons. Months later, Conglomerate finds itself in litigation over a related matter, and the opposing party seeks discovery of what the attorney reported to the Conglomerate CEO regarding Supplier's contract. Conglomerate asserts attorney-client privilege for the report and its contents, but opposing counsel responds that Conglomerate waived privilege by sharing crucial aspects of the report with the purchasing manager, while asking for a business judgment. How is the court likely to rule? a) The purchasing manager can decide whether to keep or waive privilege at this point. b) The attorney's report remains privileged if Conglomerate was already anticipating litigation over the contract with Supplier, but not if litigation was not a concern at the time. c) The CEO indeed waived privilege for the attorney's report by sharing it with a manager in the context of a business judgment inquiry, rather than a legal position. d) The attorney's report to the CEO would remain privileged notwithstanding that CEO shared it with the purchasing manager.

d) The attorney's report to the CEO would remain privileged notwithstanding that CEO shared it with the purchasing manager.

An attorney represented a defendant in a personal-injury action. The client made a confidential communication to the attorney concerning the circumstances of the accident. Later, in the judicial proceedings, the attorney was conducting direct examination of the client, and the client testified about the occurrence. When the plaintiff's lawyer began his cross-examination of the client, he asked whether the defendant's testimony was consistent with the account she previously gave to her attorney in confidence. The defendant declared, "I have testified exactly as I told attorney two days after this awful accident occurred. I explained to my attorney then that the skid marks made by the plaintiff's car were 200 feet long, and I have said the same things here." The plaintiff's attorney then proceeds to ask questions about the discussions with her attorney, and the defendant's attorney objected that privilege applies to this conversation. The plaintiff's lawyer insisted that the defendant waived privilege by discussing the same things in her court testimony. Which one is correct? a) It depends on whether the facts in question would constitute material questions of fact in the case. b) It depends on whether the client claimed attorney-client privilege for all prior conversations with her attorney before she began testifying about the same events. c) The defendant's attorney is correct that his client did not waive attorney-client privilege by referencing the previous privileged conversations at trial. d) The plaintiff's lawyer is correct that the defendant opened the door referencing the previous privileged conversations at trial, thereby waiving privilege for the prior conversations.

d) The plaintiff's lawyer is correct that the defendant opened the door referencing the previous privileged conversations at trial, thereby waiving privilege for the prior conversations.

An attorney represents a client who went through a divorce several years ago in another state, and the divorce resulted in a court order for child support and spousal maintenance. The client then moved to the attorney's state, started a new career in politics, and formed new relationships. She has kept her previous marriage a divorce a secret, except from her closest friend and her attorney, because she is afraid it will affect her new career and public image. Recently, she hired her attorney to handle various legal matters for her, which included issuing a press release about her withdrawal from a political campaign. When news media outlets posted online about the client's withdrawal from the race, the attorney responded to some of the comments that readers posted, to clear up some misunderstandings. In one of the attorney's responses, he mentioned the client's previous marriage and divorce. Did the attorney violate the duty of confidentiality? a) It depends on whether there was a sealed record in the client's divorce case. b) No, because the divorce and court order regarding child support are a matter of public record. c) No, because the client authorized the attorney to issue the press release, which impliedly authorized the disclosure of other helpful information. d) Yes, because even disclosures of information contained in the public record must have client authorization.

d) Yes, because even disclosures of information contained in the public record must have client authorization.