Michael J. Hutter Introduction
Consider the following scenario: "X" in a fit of fury strikes a classmate in the head with a baseball bat after a bullying incident. The victim dies and "X," beset with guilt and remorse, turns to another person for counsel and advice. If that person is an attorney, any confidential communication to the attorney would be protected against disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, CPLR 4503(a). Similar protection against disclosure exists for a confidential communication to a spouse, CPLR 4502(b); member of the clergy, CPLR 4505; physician, psychiatrist or psychologist, CPLR 4504, 4507; or a social worker, CPLR 4508. But would a confidential communication by "X" to X's parent be privileged?Parent-Child Privilege: Alive and Well But With Uncertain Conditions
Kemp has renewed interest in recognizing as well as limiting or precluding the existence of a parent-child privlege through legislation. This column will explore the present landscape and with that background suggest issues which must be addressed in a codification of the privilege.
March 31, 2023 at 09:50 AM
12 minute read
Michael J. Hutter
Introduction
Consider the following scenario: "X" in a fit of fury strikes a classmate in the head with a baseball bat after a bullying incident. The victim dies and "X," beset with guilt and remorse, turns to another person for counsel and advice. If that person is an attorney, any confidential communication to the attorney would be protected against disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, CPLR 4503(a). Similar protection against disclosure exists for a confidential communication to a spouse, CPLR 4502(b); member of the clergy, CPLR 4505; physician, psychiatrist or psychologist, CPLR 4504, 4507; or a social worker, CPLR 4508. But would a confidential communication by "X" to X's parent be privileged?
This content has been archived.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 All
Decision of the Day: Second Amendment Does Not Offer Right to Obtain Firearms 'On Demand'
Decision of the Day: Firm, Founding Partner Disqualified From Probate Case Amid Investigation on Undue Influence Claim
Decision of the Day: District Judge Vacates Magistrate's Ruling to Disqualify Prosecutors in Kidnapping Case
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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
