In-house Counsel: Are Your Communications Protected?
The attorney-client privilege does not simply follow an attorney by virtue of his or her profession.
April 06, 2018 at 11:44 AM
4 minute read
As in-house counsel, all of your communications are protected, right?
Not so fast.
Georgia courts have consistently recognized that the attorney-client privilege applies to communications between in-house corporate counsel and the organization's management and employees. But not all in-house counsel communications are protected.
The attorney-client privilege does not simply follow an attorney by virtue of his or her profession. It extends only to confidential communications made for the purpose of getting or giving legal advice.
Must Be Confidential
The attorney-client privilege does not attach to communications made by in-house lawyers which are not of a confidential nature. Within the context of corporate communications, the issue of confidentiality is not always straightforward.
To be considered confidential, the communication must not only not be disclosed to anyone outside the organization, it also must not be disclosed to anyone who was not authorized, expressly or by business practice, to receive such advice and act upon it. If a communication is disseminated beyond those employees who “need to know” its contents, the privilege will be lost. A communication with in-house counsel regarding subject matter within an employee's scope of employment would be considered “need to know.”
Must Be for Legal Advice
Obviously, to be protected by the attorney-client privilege a communication must relate to the giving or receiving of legal advice. In-house counsel typically serve in dual roles, frequently being called upon to give business, as well as legal, advice. And the line between legal advice and business advice is sometimes difficult to draw. Relevant factors include the nature and purpose of the communication and how and to whom the communication was made.
Which Employees Are Covered?
Not all employee communications with in-house counsel are covered by the privilege, particularly those by lower-level employees. Georgia has adopted a “modified subject matter” test to analyze whether a communication between an employee and in-house counsel is covered. Under that test, a communication is privileged if:
- the communication was made for the purpose of securing legal advice;
- the employee making the communication did so at the direction of his or her corporate superior;
- the superior made the request so that the corporation could secure legal advice;
- the subject matter of the communication is within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; and
- the communication is not disseminated beyond those persons who, because of the corporate structure, need to know its contents.
See Marriott Corp. v. Am. Acad. of Psychotherapists, Inc., 157 Ga. App. 497 (1981).
Tips for In-House Counsel
In-house counsel must be aware of the contours of the attorney-client privilege and take steps to protect their legal advice from potential disclosure. Some specific steps in-house counsel should take, include:
- Educate management about the privilege generally and which communications are typically protected and which are not.
- Do not share privileged communications outside of those who need to know contents.
- Clearly communicate to management and employees which role the in-house counsel is playing when a communication is made.
- If possible, separate communications containing legal advice from communications containing business advice.
- Label legal communications appropriately to designate them confidential and privileged.
Jonathan E. Hawkins is executive vice president and general counsel at Village Park Senior Living. He is also of counsel at the Atlanta firm of Krevolin & Horst, where he provides general, business and ethics counsel to lawyers and law firms.
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 AllSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readGeorgia RICO Case Against Trump Likely to Avoid Trial Amid Election Win, Nationally-Known Law Professor Says
State Appeals Court 'Reluctantly' Remands $1.7B Punitive Damages, Sanctions Against Ford for Fatal Rollover
COVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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