Cal. Codes » Evidence Code
California Codes

Cal. Evidence Code § 953 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this article, “holder of the privilege” means:

(a)The client, if the client has no guardian or conservator.

(b)(1)A guardian or conservator of the client, if the client has a guardian or conservator, except as provided in paragraph (2).

(2)If the guardian or conservator has an actual or apparent conflict of interest with the client, then the guardian or conservator does not hold the privilege.

(c)The personal representative of the client if the client is dead, including a personal representative appointed pursuant to Section 12252 of the Probate Code.

(d)A successor, assign, trustee in dissolution, or any similar representative of a firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, or public entity that is no longer in existence.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 188 Cal. App. 4th 189 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 188 Cal. App. 4th 189 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “First, did Get Flipped acquire Motion Graphix’s privilege when it acquired the company’s assets? Evidence Code section 953, subdivision (d), 21 provides the successor to a corporation “that is no longer in existence” becomes the holder of the extinct corporation’s lawyer-client…”
People v. Hayes, 989 P.2d 645 (Cal. 2000). · cites it 2× “[13] He made an offer of proof that the attorney had spoken to an attorney in defense counsel's firm, stating that he had told Garcia that she needed immunity because she faced prosecution for first degree murder and the gas chamber, and that he had negotiated for immunity with…”
Kerner v. Superior Court, 206 Cal. App. 4th 84 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “12 (Evid. Code, § 953.) The lawyer who received or *112 made a privileged communication is obligated to “claim the privilege whenever he is present when the communication is sought to be disclosed and is authorized to claim the privilege” under Evidence Code section 954.”
Melendrez v. Superior Court, 215 Cal. App. 4th 1343 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “) An attorney who received or made a privileged communication is required to claim the privilege whenever the communication is sought to be disclosed and the attorney is authorized to claim the privilege. (Evid. Code, § 955.”
Moeller v. Superior Court, 947 P.2d 279 (Cal. 1997). · cites it 2× “) With exceptions that are not relevant here (Evid. Code, § 953, subds. (b), (c), (d)), the person who controls the privilege is the client who confidentially communicated with the lawyer.”
BP Alaska Expl., Inc. v. Superior Court, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1240 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Thus, under the lawyer-client privilege, the client is the holder of the privilege but the lawyer is also entitled to claim the privilege for the client (Evid. Code, §§ 953, 954); under the physician-patient privilege, the patient is the holder of the privilege but the physician…”
People v. Barnett, 954 P.2d 384 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). “Defendant contends on appeal that Burgess’s supposed waiver of the attorney-client privilege was invalid because he did not receive assistance and advisement of counsel before making disclosures on the disputed topic.”
Warden v. Kahn, 99 Cal. App. 3d 805 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “The telephone communications of the case concerned Warden's legal representation of Kahn in "disputes and litigations" with others.”
In Re the Investigation of the Death of Miller, 584 S.E.2d 772 (N.C. 2003). “§ 16-41-101 , Rule 502(c) (2002); Cal. Evid. Code § 953 (c) (Deering 2003); Del.”
People v. Barnett, 954 P.2d 384 (Cal. 1998). “Defendant contends on appeal that Burgess's supposed waiver of the attorney-client privilege was invalid because he did not receive assistance and advisement of counsel before making disclosures on the disputed topic.”
Cassel v. Superior Court, 244 P.3d 1080 (Cal. 2011). “This interest may extend to private communications between the attorney and the client because those communications themselves will often disclose what others have said during the mediation.”
Dickerson v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. App. 3d 93 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “Code, § 954), but it belongs to the client who alone may waive it (Evid. Code, §§ 953, 954, 955). The client who originally retained Chandler’s services was ADZ, Inc.”
Show all 41 citing cases →
— Cal. Evidence Code § 953(b) — 1 case
Roberts v. Heim, 123 F.R.D. 614 (N.D. Cal. 1988).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.