Privilege Maintenance: Protecting Law Firm In-House Counsel Communications
Although the majority of courts who have reviewed this issue have recognized and enforced a privilege shared between law firm attorneys and their in-house counsel, there is some uncertainty nationwide.
May 25, 2018 at 01:17 PM
6 minute read
Nearly five years ago, the ABA House of Delegates passed a resolution voicing the organization's support for the law firm in-house counsel privilege. It urged courts and legislatures to recognize that attorneys' communications with their own firm's in-house counsel are privileged, even when those communications relate to ongoing client matters. See 2013 ABA House of Delegates Resolution 103. That resolution came on the heels of decisions from the highest courts of Massachusetts and Georgia, which both held that attorneys can share an attorney-client privilege with their firm's in-house counsel.
Although the majority of courts who have reviewed this issue have recognized and enforced a privilege shared between law firm attorneys and their in-house counsel, there is some uncertainty nationwide, particularly where the local courts have not addressed the issue directly. Some courts have recognized the tension that can exist between a law firm's obligations to a client and the law firm's interest in protecting its internal communications that could arise out of a concern or mistake in the representation of that client.
Although Connecticut courts have yet to directly address this question, a decision in the corporate context may shed some light. In Blumenthal v. Kimber Manufacturing, 265 Conn. 1, 826 A.2d 1088 (2003), the Connecticut Supreme Court confirmed the four criteria that must be present in the corporate context for the attorney-client privilege to attach: “1) the attorney must be acting in a professional capacity for the [corporation], (2) the [communication] must be made to the attorney by current employees or officials of the [corporation], (3) the [communication] must relate to the legal advice sought by the [corporation] from the attorney, and (4) the [communication] must be made in confidence.” Id. at 10–11.
These factors may have some relevance in the context of law firms, too. By reviewing the applicable corporate privilege law in Connecticut, along with decisions from those states that have expressly protected communications between law firm lawyers and their in-house counsel, attorneys can identify those steps that can help them avoid waiver of any protections.
Designate In-House Counsel in the Firm
Consistent with the first Blumenthal factor, formally appointing an attorney or group of attorneys as the law firm's in-house counsel can provide benefits to both the firm and its clients. Because in-house counsel will generally handle multiple intrafirm matters, creating and using this position, for many firms, leads to increased efficiency and expertise. Handling firm matters on an ad hoc basis can be much less efficient. Designating in-house counsel can help prevent malpractice claims and may even help the firm reduce its insurance premiums.
Formally appointing an in-house counsel often means that the in-house counsel dedicates significant time to the representation of the firm's interests, from maintaining confidentiality to ensuring conflicts of interests are avoided. Many larger firms decide to employ full-time in-house counsel that represent, at most, a limited number of clients.
Other firms may only have the need to appoint part-time in-house counsel. In those instances, the in-house counsel will usually represent outside clients in addition to the representation of the firm. To help bolster the privilege, the in-house counsel can clarify when she is acting as the firm's counsel and when she is acting as counsel to her outside clients.
For some firms, depending on their size or need, they may choose not to formally designate an in-house counsel. Instead, they may delegate the in-house counsel responsibilities to firm attorneys on a case-by-case basis. This method may create additional risk because it may be harder for the firm to prove that certain communications were made pursuant to that attorney's role as in-house counsel. If an attorney is acting as counsel to the firm with regard to a specific matter (for example, a client's fee dispute), most firms will ensure that that attorney does not and has not represented that client previously. If no firm attorney can provide that role, firms may look to outside counsel.
Keep Client Files Separate From In-House Counsel Files
Another step firms can take to help safeguard the privilege is to segregate files maintained by in-house counsel from other attorneys' files relating to client representations.
If the in-house counsel's files are maintained in close proximity to or interspersed with client files, the privilege may be contested. If a communication or report, prepared by the in-house counsel, is stored as part of the client's file and not a separate internal file, the client may stake a claim to those materials. Indeed, a former client challenging the privilege may argue that the failure to segregate in-house counsel files actually supports the client's claims of firm misconduct or ethical rule violations. Physically separating the files, both electronic and paper, can reduce this risk.
Assign Appropriate Responsibilities to the In-House Counsel Position
To safeguard against this ambiguity and disputes, many firms will ensure that in-house counsel are categorically treated as such when rendering legal advice to the firm's attorneys, in both form and substance. While the use of an official title like “General Counsel” is a starting point, some firms will assign the in-house counsel additional responsibilities such as investigating matters involving firm or attorney exposure, showing that the in-house counsel's role is not in name only.
Other responsibilities that may be assigned to the in-house counsel include purchasing the firm's legal malpractice insurance, resolving conflicts of interests, providing updates to firm attorneys on ethical obligations, documenting and reporting potential claims to the firm's insurance carrier, and maintaining and updating the firm's partnership agreement when necessary.
To further show legitimacy of the position, many firms will update their administrative procedures such that the in-house counsel treats the representation of the firm like that of a firm client. This process can include creating a unique billing number for in-house counsel matters or recording the hours billed to the firm. This can also help safeguard against an attorney seeking legal advice from the in-house counsel accidentally billing this time to the client.
Consideration of these steps may help firms protect their internal privilege while continuing to engage in client representations.
Alanna G. Clair is a partner at Dentons US in Washington, D.C., and focuses on professional liability defense. Shari L. Klevens is a partner at Dentons US in Atlanta and Washington, D.C., and serves on the firm's U.S. board of directors. She represents and advises lawyers and insurers on complex claims and is co-chairwoman of Dentons' global insurance sector team. Klevens and Clair are co-authors of “The Lawyer's Handbook: Ethics Compliance and Claim Avoidance.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCould ChatGPT Soon Find Itself in Data Privacy Regulators' Crosshairs?
4 minute readData Platform: Meta Can't Withhold Users' Publicly Posted Information
3 minute read4 Ways Dobbs Changed the Data Handling Landscape in 2022
The Balkanization of U.S. Privacy Law Continues With Connecticut's SB6
Trending Stories
- 1Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 2'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 3Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
- 4As a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
- 5Managing Partner Vindicated in Disciplinary Proceeding Brought by Former Associate
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250