A corporation retained an attorney in an antitrust matter in which the corporation was the plaintiff. Their agreement provides that the attorney will bill the corporation on an hourly basis but will not collect anything except costs until the corporation receives a recovery or a settlement in the action. The corporation had severe ethical problems with some of the things that the attorney did, and disagreed on how the case was being handled. The corporation then retained another law firm on a contingency basis. The antitrust suit went to trial, and the corporation was awarded a big judgment. The attorney sued the corporation for his uncollected fees. The corporation denied that it owed the attorney anything on the basis of malpractice, and in any event, no money was due yet because the judgment had not been collected.
The attorney wants to introduce evidence that the judgment has been collected by showing disbursements from the contingency firm’s trust account to the corporation.
Is the evidence admissible?
A. No, because it is protected by the attorney-client privilege.
B. No, because it is irrelevant.
C. Yes, because it is not a confidential communication covered by the attorney-client privilege.
D. Yes, because the privilege is not applicable to disputes between the client and the attorney.
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Answer C is correct. The attorney-client privilege prevents anyone from testifying about confidential communications made to an attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal services. Here, the payments made out of the trust fund would not appear to fall within the scope of that definition, as they were not communications made for the purpose of obtaining representation.
Answer A is incorrect. For the reasons stated in (C) above, this is not the type of communication that the attorney-client privilege seeks to protect.
Answer B is incorrect. This evidence is logically relevant to show that the corporation had received the funds from recovery or settlement of the matter, which would trigger its obligation to pay the attorney.
Answer D is incorrect. The dispute is between the corporation and the attorney. The corporation is seeking to bar the evidence based upon its attorney-client privilege with the contingency firm. In order for (D) to be the right reason, there would have to be a dispute between the contingency firm and the corporation. There is no evidence of such a dispute and, therefore, the attorney-client privilege is not waived on those grounds.
D. exception to attorney-client privilege to protect reputation of lawyer, includes bar discipline, actions where lawyer is defendant as related to disputes with former client.
Regarding D – isn’t the statement “not applicable to diputes between the client and the attorney” better applied if we were taking about disbursements from the first attorney? The atty-client privilege isn’t at issue b/c attorney 1 wants to show dispursements from attorney 2 to client. The statement in D is a better fit if we were talking about attorney 1 and client – it doesn’t apply to another lawyer.
I think the answer is D because the evidence s relevant to the attorneys case and it does not relate to his attorney/client relatonship with the corporation.
Answer C
answer D
D…
judgment is not covered by attorney client privilege –
D is the best answer. This dispute is between the attorney and client, thus the attorney/client privilege does not apply.
D!
D – I like it too.
D is correct.
I believe the best answer is D. Priviliges cannot be a source of exclusion of material/relevant evidence in disputes between a client and attorney. Also, I believe C is wrong because a disbursement of money is not a confidential communication (communication between attorney and client in preparation for litigation).
D. While C is tempting I think D is the better answer. If not for the lawsuit it would be privileged