En Banc Rehearing Doesn't Change Outcome of First-Impression Attorney-Client Privilege Case
A litigant who asserts attorney-client privilege before trial may not unfairly surprise their adversary by waiving that privilege on the stand, a deeply split Pennsylvania Superior Court en banc has ruled, reaching the same conclusion arrived at by a divided three-judge panel in 2016.
September 27, 2018 at 03:37 PM
6 minute read
A litigant who asserts attorney-client privilege before trial may not unfairly surprise their adversary by waiving that privilege on the stand, a deeply split Pennsylvania Superior Court en banc has ruled, reaching the same conclusion arrived at by a divided three-judge panel in 2016.
In December 2016, the original panel, addressing an issue of first impression, ruled 2-1 in Gregury v. Greguras that a defendant who asserted her attorney-client privilege during the discovery phase in a dispute over a will should not have been allowed to waive that privilege once the case got to trial.
The court granted rehearing en banc in January 2017 and on Sept. 20 of this year issued its decision, voting 5-4 to reverse a decision from the York County Court of Common Pleas, which had denied a motion by the plaintiffs seeking either a mistrial or an extension of the discovery period after the defendant announced at trial she would be waiving the privilege.
“An eleventh-hour waiver has considerable potential to create unfair surprise and prejudice to the other party, and it is the role of the trial court to prevent it by reasonable means,” Judge Mary Jane Bowes wrote for the majority.
The case stems from a dispute between plaintiffs John Gregury and Barbara Robey, the children of decedent Adolf Greguras, who was married to Shirley Greguras. Shirley Greguras had worked with attorney James Yingst of Guthrie, Nonemaker, Yingst & Hart to prepare a will for Adolf Greguras. The plaintiffs contended that Shirley Greguras and Yingst “committed some sort of fraud or breach of duty” that prevented them from accessing assets they believed Adolf Greguras intended to leave for them.
The case proceeded to trial on claims including fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. According to court documents, after the defendants' opening statement, defense counsel indicated that Shirley Greguras intended to waive her attorney-client privilege at trial.
The plaintiffs made a motion for mistrial or a delay to allow for additional discovery, but the trial court denied the motion, saying, “The privilege was [Shirley Greguras'] to invoke or waive at trial.”
At the end of the plaintiffs' case the trial court granted a motion to dismiss the suit.
On appeal, the plaintiffs contended the late waiver of privilege made cross-examination extremely problematic, and would allow her to “concoct any claim of previously undisclosed privileged discussions, free of any risk of rebuttal.”
The court en banc sought guidance based on how Pennsylvania courts have dealt with similar privilege issues, such as the last-minute waiver of a previously invoked Fifth Amendment privilege in a civil case and the last-minute waiver of the physician-patient privilege in a medical malpractice case.
“Although the propriety of a voluntary last-minute waiver of the previously invoked attorney-client privilege appears to be a question of first impression in this commonwealth, our courts have taken a dim view of the manipulation of privilege in other circumstances,” Bowes said.
And as the original three-judge panel had done, the court en banc also looked at how other courts have addressed the last-minute waiver of attorney-client privilege.
Bowes noted that the Washington State Court of Appeals and a federal district court in Florida both prohibited the tactic.
“Herein, the trial court failed to appreciate the prejudice to appellants from Shirley's last-minute waiver of the privilege,” Bowes said. “If it had, we believe it could have alleviated the prejudice without declaring a mistrial. The trial court could have precluded appellees from introducing at trial the communications that were the subject of the earlier exercise of the privilege, or alternatively, briefly halted the proceedings to permit limited discovery of Shirley and attorney Yingst. The trial court's failure to acknowledge the unfair surprise and remedy its prejudicial impact upon appellants' trial strategy, their ability to effectively cross-examine appellees, and the testimony of appellants' expert, requires a new trial.”
Bowes was joined by Judges John Bender, Jacqueline Shogan, Judith Ference Olson and Victor Stabile.
Judge Paula Francisco Ott penned a dissenting opinion, joined by President Judge Susan Peikes Gantman and Judges Anne Lazarus and Alice Dubow.
“While the majority provides a thoughtful analysis of at-trial waiver of the attorney-client privilege, I believe the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial in light of 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5928, which permits the privilege to be waived 'upon the trial by the client,' and the circumstances of this case,” Ott said.
Ott argued that “it was reasonable that [Shirley Greguras] would waive her privilege, if at all, only when appellants' counsel argued to the jury in his opening statement that appellees 'exercised attorney/client privilege inconsistently in their depositions' and the jury 'could consider that in assessing [appellees'] credibility.'”
“Under these circumstances, counsel's own trial strategy cannot create 'unfair surprise,'” Ott said.
Ott further contended that counsel for Gregury and Robey should have anticipated that Shirley Greguras might waive her privilege at trial.
“Given appellants' counsel's belief there were 'irregular' assertions of the privilege in discovery and his trial strategy to attack appellees' credibility, and in light of Section 5928 that allows waiver of the privilege 'upon the trial,' appellants' counsel had every reason prior to trial to file a motion in limine to preclude Shirley's waiver of the attorney-client privilege at the time of trial,” Ott said. “He did not do so.”
Andrew W. Barbin, who represented the plaintiffs, said in a statement: “Pending further action by our Supreme Court, if any, plaintiffs will receive all they ever wanted, an opportunity for their claims to be heard by a jury of their peers to determine justice and provide closure.”
Edwin Schwartz of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, who represented Yingst, did not return a call for comment.
(Copies of the 48-page opinion in Gregury v. Greguras, PICS No. 18-1185, are available at http://at.law.com/PICS.)
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 AllHigh Verdicts and Venue Rule Land Pa. Courts on Top of 'Judicial Hellhole' List
5 minute readJudge Awards $200K in Attorney Fees Following $80K Employment Discrimination Award
4 minute readPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
Trending Stories
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