In-house Counsel: Are Your Communications Protected?
The attorney-client privilege does not simply follow an attorney by virtue of his or her profession.
April 06, 2018 at 11:44 AM
4 minute read
As in-house counsel, all of your communications are protected, right?
Not so fast.
Georgia courts have consistently recognized that the attorney-client privilege applies to communications between in-house corporate counsel and the organization's management and employees. But not all in-house counsel communications are protected.
The attorney-client privilege does not simply follow an attorney by virtue of his or her profession. It extends only to confidential communications made for the purpose of getting or giving legal advice.
Must Be Confidential
The attorney-client privilege does not attach to communications made by in-house lawyers which are not of a confidential nature. Within the context of corporate communications, the issue of confidentiality is not always straightforward.
To be considered confidential, the communication must not only not be disclosed to anyone outside the organization, it also must not be disclosed to anyone who was not authorized, expressly or by business practice, to receive such advice and act upon it. If a communication is disseminated beyond those employees who “need to know” its contents, the privilege will be lost. A communication with in-house counsel regarding subject matter within an employee's scope of employment would be considered “need to know.”
Must Be for Legal Advice
Obviously, to be protected by the attorney-client privilege a communication must relate to the giving or receiving of legal advice. In-house counsel typically serve in dual roles, frequently being called upon to give business, as well as legal, advice. And the line between legal advice and business advice is sometimes difficult to draw. Relevant factors include the nature and purpose of the communication and how and to whom the communication was made.
Which Employees Are Covered?
Not all employee communications with in-house counsel are covered by the privilege, particularly those by lower-level employees. Georgia has adopted a “modified subject matter” test to analyze whether a communication between an employee and in-house counsel is covered. Under that test, a communication is privileged if:
- the communication was made for the purpose of securing legal advice;
- the employee making the communication did so at the direction of his or her corporate superior;
- the superior made the request so that the corporation could secure legal advice;
- the subject matter of the communication is within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; and
- the communication is not disseminated beyond those persons who, because of the corporate structure, need to know its contents.
See Marriott Corp. v. Am. Acad. of Psychotherapists, Inc., 157 Ga. App. 497 (1981).
Tips for In-House Counsel
In-house counsel must be aware of the contours of the attorney-client privilege and take steps to protect their legal advice from potential disclosure. Some specific steps in-house counsel should take, include:
- Educate management about the privilege generally and which communications are typically protected and which are not.
- Do not share privileged communications outside of those who need to know contents.
- Clearly communicate to management and employees which role the in-house counsel is playing when a communication is made.
- If possible, separate communications containing legal advice from communications containing business advice.
- Label legal communications appropriately to designate them confidential and privileged.
Jonathan E. Hawkins is executive vice president and general counsel at Village Park Senior Living. He is also of counsel at the Atlanta firm of Krevolin & Horst, where he provides general, business and ethics counsel to lawyers and law firms.
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
© 2025 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 AllA Plan Is Brewing to Limit Big-Dollar Suits in Georgia—and Lawyers Have Mixed Feelings
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 2Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
- 3Jackson Lewis Leaders Discuss Firm's Innovation Efforts, From Prompt-a-Thons to Gen AI Pilots
- 4Trump's DOJ Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block $14B Tech Merger
- 5'No Retributive Actions,' Kash Patel Pledges if Confirmed to FBI
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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