Electronic Attorney-Client Communications
The attorney-client privilege applies only to confidential communications between attorneys and clients that are made for the purpose of obtaining or rendering legal advice in the course of a professional relationship.
November 23, 2022 at 11:00 AM
13 minute read
The attorney-client privilege is the foundation of the attorney-client relationship. CPLR 4503(a)(1) codifies the attorney-client privilege. It provides, in part: "Unless the client waives the privilege, an attorney or his or her employee, or any person who obtains without the knowledge of the client evidence of a confidential communication made between the attorney or his or her employee and the client in the course of professional employment, shall not disclose, or be allowed to disclose such communication … in any action, disciplinary trial or hearing …."
The attorney-client privilege applies only to confidential communications between attorneys and clients that are made for the purpose of obtaining or rendering legal advice in the course of a professional relationship. Rossi v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Greater N.Y., 73 N.Y.2d 588 (1989). For the privilege to apply when communications are made from client to attorney, they must be made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and be directed to an attorney who has been consulted for that purpose. For the privilege to apply when communications are made from attorney to client, whether or not in response to a particular request, they must be made to facilitate the rendition of legal advice or services, in the course of a professional relationship. Id. In determining whether a communication is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the critical inquiry is whether, viewing the lawyer's communication in its full content and context, it was made in order to render legal advice or services to the client. In that regard, the attorney-client privilege protects communications between an attorney and his or her client that convey facts relevant to a legal issue under consideration, even if the information contained in the communication is not privileged. Gilbert v. Office of the Governor, 70 A.D.3d 1404 (3d Dept. 2019).
This content has been archived.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 AllEx-SDNY Clerk Can't Convince 2nd Circuit That Bribery Sentence Was Improper
3 minute read22-Count Indictment Is Just the Start of SCOTUSBlog Atty's Legal Problems, Experts Say
5 minute readSCOTUSblog Co-Founder Tom Goldstein Misused Law Firm Funds, According to Federal Indictment
2 minute readFirst Department Attorneys Facing Possible Suspension for Failing to Register
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Big Law Firms Sheppard Mullin, Morgan Lewis and Baker Botts Add Partners in Houston
- 2Lack of Jurisdiction Dooms Child Sex Abuse Claim Against Archdiocese of Philadelphia, says NJ Supreme Court
- 3DC Lawsuits Seek to Prevent Mass Firings and Public Naming of FBI Agents
- 4Growth of California Firms Exceeded Expectations, Survey of Managing Partners Says
- 5Blank Rome Adds Life Sciences Trio From Reed Smith
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