Attorney-client privilege can attach to communication between a lawyer and a third-party contractor who worked closely enough with a company to be seen as the functional equivalent of an employee, a federal judge has ruled.
Because attorney-client privilege is meant to facilitate “full and frank” communication between clients and their lawyers, which contributes to the public’s interest, and because of the common practice of companies using outside contractors, Swiftwater Group, a GlaxoSmithKline contractor, could be the equivalent of an employee who had communications with company attorneys, held U.S. District Judge Anita Brody in Philadelphia.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
