MENU

Represent Multiple Clients? Not So Fast

NYPRR Archive

Save pagePDF pageEmail pagePrint page

By Aaron J. Schechter
[Originally published in NYPRR September 2008]

 

Attorneys representing multiple clients in one matter can find themselves in trouble if they fail to assess the risks of multiple-client representation before sharing their communications among these multiple clients. This article introduces two doctrines that can extend the attorney-client privilege — the common-interest doctrine and the joint-client privilege, and then explains why an attorney representing multiple clients in connection with one matter cannot necessarily rely on the benefits of the attorney-client privilege to facilitate communication among the clients. Indeed, if an attorney proceeds under the mistaken assumption that communications among multiple clients are shielded by the attorney-client privilege, he may face the reality that a court will compel the clients to reveal them.

In New York, the attorney-client privilege is triggered either (1) when communications are made by the client “for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and directed to an attorney who has been consulted for that purpose,” or (2) when communications are made from attorney to client “for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice or services, in the course of a professional relationship.” [Rossi v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Greater New York, 73 NY2d 588, 510-11 (1989).] When such communications involve multiple lawyers and/or multiple clients, the attorney-client privilege may be extended under two distinct — and frequently misunderstood — doctrines.

First, the “common-interest doctrine” (sometimes referred to as the “allied lawyer privilege”) can extend the attorney-client privilege when multiple parties represented by different lawyers are mounting a joint defense or engaged in a common legal enterprise. [See, e.g., People v. Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d 80, 84-85 (1989).] Second, the “joint-client privilege” can extend the attorney-client privilege “when the same attorney acts for two parties having a common interest.” [See, e.g., Wallace v. Wallace, 216 N.Y. 28 (1915).]

The common-interest doctrine requires a common interest among parties by its very name, but the joint-client privilege similarly presupposes the existence of a common interest between joint clients of the same lawyer. [See e.g., Wallace, “[W]hen the same attorney acts for two parties having a common interest, and each party communicates with him[,] the communications are clearly privileged”; see also Rudow v. Cohen, 1988 WL 13746, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 1988), holding that the attorney-client privilege shields communications that are made in the course of the attorney’s joint representation of a common interest between the two parties.] Thus, to invoke either the common-interest doctrine or the joint-client privilege, the parties must have “an identical legal interest with respect to the subject matter of a communication.” [Durham Indus., Inc. v. North River Ins. Co., 1980 WL 112701, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 1980).]

Because the joint-client privilege is triggered only when an attorney’s multiple clients share a common legal interest, an attorney representing multiple clients in one matter should carefully assess the circumstances of the representation before sharing either client’s communications with the other, or communicating at the same time with more than one such client. By way of example — most attorneys will easily recognize that when they represent A and B on entirely different matters, their attorney-client communications with A cannot be shared with B (and vice versa), nor can there be a joint meeting among the lawyer and A and B. But the same result can occur even when he represents A and B in the same matter, because the simultaneous representation of two separate clients in the same matter does not automatically give rise to the joint-client privilege. Before sharing communications between A and B, or conducting a joint meeting with A and B, the attorney must determine that A and B share a common legal interest with regard to the representation.

The lawyer’s inquiry becomes particularly acute when he represents a party to a lawsuit and also undertakes to represent a “friendly” witness in the same matter. In these circumstances, New York law makes clear that a witness who “is not a party to [the] litigation, and [whose] legal position will be unaffected by the outcome of th[e] case” cannot have a “common interest” with the litigant. [See SR Intl. Bus. Ins. Co. v. World Trade Ctr. Props. LLC, 2002 WL 1334821, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2002); see also, Bass Public Ltd. v. Promus Cos., 868 F. Supp. 615, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), which found no joint attorney-client privilege between two clients of a law firm because the clients “were never co-defendants in [the] action and there [was] no evidence that any of the parties anticipated that they would become co-defendants in subsequent litigation.”] “…[S]haring a desire to succeed in an action does not create a ‘common interest.’” [see SR Intl. Bus. Ins. Co., 2002 WL 1334821, at *4, quoting Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., 34 F. Supp. 2d 879, 893 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); see also Yemini v. Goldberg, 821 N.Y.S.2d 384, 387 (Sup. Ct. 2006), holding that a non-party fact witness did not have a “common legal interest” with the litigant because his “interest in the outcome … can only be viewed as personal or business oriented.”]

In a recent decision addressing these principles, a federal judge ruled that the joint-client privilege did not apply to a witness preparation meeting attended by (1) a New York State Trooper who was the sole defendant in a Section 1983 case, (2) the Assistant Attorney general representing the defendant, and (3) four current or former New York State Troopers who were non-party witnesses and received representation from the same Assistant Attorney general in connection with their testimony. [Smith v. Anthony, Civ. No. 95-8374, D.I. 77 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2008) (Batts, J.). (Kirkland & Ellis represents Plaintiff Steven Smith in this action.)]

The meeting in Smith occurred shortly before the depositions of the four non-party witnesses. At their depositions, these witnesses followed counsel’s instructions not to testify about the meeting on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. [Id.] The plaintiff challenged the privilege, and the Assistant Attorney general submitted that the meeting was privileged because the witnesses were “non-adverse witnesses employed at the time of the incident by the New York State Police.” [Id.] In response, the plaintiff argued that the joint-client privilege did not arise simply because there was a lack of adversity between the defendant and the witnesses, but required the showing of a common legal interest between them. Indeed, the non-party trooper witnesses had never been parties to the action, had no chance of being held liable for the incident that led to the action, and would have been wholly unaffected by the outcome of the action. [Id.]

The Court concluded that the circumstances did not provide any basis for a privilege assertion, thereby overruling the Assistant Attorney general’s privilege instruction and requiring the non-party witnesses to sit for continued depositions concerning communications during what was intended to be a privileged meeting. [Id.] As this decision illustrates, an attorney for a litigant who also chooses to represent a witness for his client must be particularly careful when speaking jointly to his multiple clients, and should never assume that the joint-client privilege is automatically triggered because they are all his clients.

It is important to note that these privilege issues regarding witness representation give rise to different complexities when an attorney represents business entities rather than individuals. In the corporate representation context, the client is the corporate entity itself, and the attorney-client privilege is sometimes extended all the way down to the attorney’s “communications with low- and mid-level employees.” [See, e.g., Niesig v. Team I, 76 N.Y.2d 363, 371 (1990).] Moreover, the corporate entity’s attorney-client privilege may cover former employees with respect to attorney-client communications that took place during the time of employment. [See, e.g., Radovic v. City of New York, 642 N.Y.S.2d 1015 (Sup. Ct. 1996).] Given these principles, an attorney who normally represents corporate entities — and is used to facilitating privileged communications between and among many individuals — must be particularly mindful of the joint-client privilege’s common-interest requirement when representing individual clients.

In light of the willingness of some courts to invalidate assertions of the joint-client privilege, an attorney seeking to facilitate communications between clients should first ascertain the nature and scope of the common interest (if any) between those clients. If in doubt as to whether a joint client privilege can exist, the attorney should err on the side of separately communicating with each client and not sharing one client’s privileged communications with the other client. The fact that New York’s Disciplinary Rule 5-105 allows simultaneous representation of multiple clients does not provide the attorney with automatic license to share the privileged communication of one client with other clients.


Aaron J. Schechter is an attorney in the New York office of Kirkland & Ellis LLP whose practice focuses on intellectual property and commercial litigation.

DISCLAIMER: This article provides general coverage of its subject area and is presented to the reader for informational purposes only with the understanding that the laws governing legal ethics and professional responsibility are always changing. The information in this article is not a substitute for legal advice and may not be suitable in a particular situation. Consult your attorney for legal advice. New York Legal Ethics Reporter provides this article with the understanding that neither New York Legal Ethics Reporter LLC, nor Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, nor Hofstra University, nor their representatives, nor any of the authors are engaged herein in rendering legal advice. New York Legal Ethics Reporter LLC, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, Hofstra University, their representatives, and the authors shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission.

 

Related Posts

56 Responses to Represent Multiple Clients? Not So Fast

  1. Klaus says:

    It works quite well for me

  2. Rodolfo says:

    It works really well for me

  3. Fae says:

    I like the article

  4. Miles says:

    This is actually helpful, thanks.

  5. Weldon says:

    Thanks for the terrific post

  6. Chas says:

    I spent a lot of time to locate something similar to
    this

  7. I was curious if you ever considered changing the layout of your site? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or two pictures. Maybe you could space it out better?

  8. Thanks for the terrific guide

  9. It’s https://seooptimizatioblog.wordpress.com/2018/09/02/4-%CE%B4%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%B9%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%AD%CE%BD%CE%B1-conversion-copywriting-tips-%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%B1-seo-content/ – crucial to keep during queries this when Appear engine traffic is the one objective, the good results is likely to maybe go through. During attain you please probably this hunt engines (who shall present your self having high positions with regards to time) and means members as well as yield visitors, your self drive in direction of sell . You actually place one of those tables at the end. But unfortunately, that counter isn’t shifting is by building your keyword plan naturally previously as well as last get one at a post workplace, grocery shop and many other hassle-free locations. Store around engine optimization. On different terms, don’t quality utilizing a few different design methods. Uppercase, strong contrasting color and a high label positioning all aid offer off “thin” article content which ranks along with become clicks, techniques that are wrong as well. As an example, there is “spamdexing” , involving repeating unrelated key doesn’t provide a far more importance for of the Visual appearance engine user. Puts who provide “thin,” low-value product powered plug-ins that is easily available which are de possibility for remaining punished from Google; they for hitting buyers, quality value tactic online” then its obvious why companies ar tend against Consist of major soar fees as well as tiny conversion price ranges.

  10. Siu Norskog says:

    Black on black in the Charger I’m creepin’ Rub me the right way, you might get a genie B.o.B, black Houdini

  11. Darryl says:

    I spent a lot of time to find something similar to this

  12. Florine says:

    I like the report

  13. I’ll right away clutch your rss feed as I can not to find your email subscription link or newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Please permit me recognise in order that I may just subscribe. Thanks.

  14. With thanks! Valuable information!

  15. Thanks, it is very informative

  16. Fae says:

    Thank you for the excellent post

  17. Outstanding post, I think blog owners should learn a lot from this weblog its really user pleasant.

  18. Hi, I do believe this is an excellent web site. I stumbledupon it 😉 I will revisit yet again since I bookmarked it. Money and freedom is the greatest way to change, may you be rich and continue to guide other people.

  19. Eliza says:

    It works really well for me

  20. Vera says:

    Thanks for the great guide

  21. Angelika says:

    Thanks for the terrific manual

  22. Black on black in the Charg I’m creepin’ Rub me the right way, you might get a genie B.o.B, black Houdini

  23. Hello! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any trouble with hackers? My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing many months of hard work due to no back up. Do you have any methods to prevent hackers?

  24. Black on black in the Charg I’m creepin’ Rub me the right way, you might get a genie B.o.B, black Houdini

  25. This really answered my downside, thank you!

  26. Leo Papelian says:

    Don’t wear seat belts lest you drown in your own urine?

  27. Alex Loura says:

    Don’t wear seat belts lest you drown in your own urine?

  28. I very glad to find this website on bing, just what I was looking for : D likewise saved to fav.

  29. Reid Oneil says:

    I genuinely appreciate your work, Great post.

  30. When someone writes an post he/she retains the image of a user in his/her mind that how a user can understand it. Thus that’s why this article is outstdanding. Thanks!

  31. wohh precisely what I was searching for, appreciate it for putting up.

  32. Alonso Feser says:

    With thanks! Valuable information!

  33. Enjoyed looking at this, very good stuff, regards.

  34. Chae Steury says:

    With thanks! Valuable information!

  35. Like says:

    Like!! Great article post.Really thank you! Really Cool.

  36. Black on black in the Charg I’m creepin’ Rub me the right way, you might get a genie B.o.B, black Houdini

  37. Black on black in the Charger I’m creepin’ Rub me the right way, you might get a genie B.o.B, black Houdini

  38. I went over this site and I think you have a lot of good information, saved to fav 🙂

  39. With thanks! Valuable information!

  40. Black on black in the Charg I’m creepin’ Rub me the right way, you might get a genie B.o.B, black Houdini

  41. minecraft says:

    Have you ever considered about adding a little bit
    more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is fundamental and everything.
    Nevertheless think about if you added some great graphics or video clips to give
    your posts more, “pop”! Your content is excellent but with pics and clips,
    this website could undeniably be one of the most beneficial in its
    niche. Awesome blog!

  42. minecraft says:

    No matter if some one searches for his required thing, thus he/she
    wishes to be available that in detail, thus that thing is maintained over here.

  43. Buy Private Proxies: Private and unseen, Snobs quality proxies, Unending data transfer, 1000 mb/s superspeed, 99,9 uptime, USA spot proxies – ProxyBig.COM

  44. May I simply just say what a relief to find someone that really understands what they’re discussing on the internet. You actually realize how to bring an issue to light and make it important. A lot more people must check this out and understand this side of the story. I was surprised you’re not more popular since you most certainly possess the gift.

  45. Don’t wear seat belts lest you drown in your own urine?

  46. Ismael Drevs says:

    Don’t wear seat belts lest you drown in your own urine?

  47. Cleo Headlam says:

    With thanks! Valuable information!

  48. thank you for sharing with us, I believe this website genuinely stands out : D.

  49. Black on black in the Charg I’m creepin’ Rub me the right way, you might get a genie B.o.B, black Houdini

  50. Black on black in the Charger I’m creepin’ Rub me the right way, you might get a genie B.o.B, black Houdini

  51. minecraft says:

    all the time i used to read smaller content that also clear their motive,
    and that is also happening with this paragraph which I am reading now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

« »