California Court of Appeal

In this case, petitioner-attorney sought legal advice from an in-house attorney concerning a dispute with the petitioner’s client, who later sued petitioner’s firm for malpractice. Petition for writ of mandate directing the trial court to set aside its motion to compel communications between the two attorneys is granted, and the case remanded for further proceedings, where: 1) the attorney-client privilege may apply to confidential communications between an attorney who seeks legal advice from an in-house attorney concerning a dispute with a current client; and 2) adoption of the so-called “fiduciary” and “current client” exceptions to the attorney-client privilege is contrary to California law because California courts are not at liberty to create implied exceptions to the privilege.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/25/2014
• Published 11/25/2014

Judges

• Aldrich

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel