Cal. Codes » Evidence Code / DIVISION 8. PRIVILEGES / CHAPTER 4. Particular Privileges / ARTICLE 3. Lawyer-Client Privilege
California Codes

Cal. Evidence Code § 962 (2026)

Lawyer-Client Privilege

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

Where two or more clients have retained or consulted a lawyer upon a matter of common interest, none of them, nor the successor in interest of any of them, may claim a privilege under this article as to a communication made in the course of that relationship when such communication is offered in a civil proceeding between one of such clients (or his successor in interest) and another of such clients (or his successor in interest).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: Bartholomew v. Avalon Capital Grp., Inc., 278 F.R.D. 441 (D. Minn. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bartholomew v. Avalon Capital Grp., Inc., 278 F.R.D. 441 (D. Minn. 2011). · cites it 5× “Cal. Evid.Code § 962; see also Croce v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco, 21 Cal.”
Fiduciary Trust Int'l v. Superior Court, 218 Cal. App. 4th 465 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “Evidence Code section 962 does not establish a blanket exception to the ethical limitations on adverse, successive representations The trustees first argue that the prohibition on successive, adverse representations does not apply when the attorney jointly represented the…”
Cont'l Cas. Co. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins., 265 F.R.D. 510 (E.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 2× “435 (1979) (each a medical malpractice action in which the court found that counsel represented both the insured and insurer under a “joint defense” theory as set forth in Cal. Evid.Code § 962); see also Great Am.”
First Pac. Networks, Inc. v. Atl. Mut. Ins., 163 F.R.D. 574 (N.D. Cal. 1995). · cites it 2× “Cal.Evid.Code § 962 (Deering 1995); Glacier General Assurance Co.”
In Re Jaeger, 213 B.R. 578 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1997). · cites it 2× “The law firm bases this argument on California Evidence Code § 962, which provides: Where two or more clients have retained or consulted a lawyer upon a matter of common interest, none of them, nor the successor in interest of any of them, may claim a[n attorney-client]…”
Houston Gen. Ins. v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. App. 3d 958 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “.. may claim a [the attorney-client] privilege .”
In Re Marriage of Friedman, 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “In such situations, for the sake of convenience or economy, the parties may well prefer to employ a single counsel, but a member must disclose the potential adverse aspects of such multiple representation (e.”
Zador Corp. v. Kwan, 31 Cal. App. 4th 1285 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). ““Where two or more clients have retained or consulted a lawyer upon a matter of common interest, none of them, nor the successor in interest of any of them, may claim a privilege under this article as to a communication made in the course of that relationship when such…”
W. Cont'l Operating Co. v. Nat. Gas Corp., 212 Cal. App. 3d 752 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). “” 3 Evidence Code section 962 provides: “Where two or more clients have retained or consulted a lawyer upon a matter of common interest, none of them, nor the successor in interest of any of them, may claim a privilege under this article as to a communication made in the course…”
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal. App. 4th 1255 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). “(Evid. Code, §§ 962, 953, subd. (a), 954, subd.”
Egedi v. Egedi, 88 Cal. App. 4th 17 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “) Other than telling the parties what the attorney did tell them, the trial court did not articulate, husband does not suggest, and we cannot think of any further advisement which could have been made save telling the parties, consistent with the rule drafter’s comment, that in…”
Dawe v. Corr. USA, 263 F.R.D. 613 (E.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 2× “California Evidence Code section 962 recognizes that a “joint client” privilege may apply to “two or more clients have retained or consulted a lawyer upon a matter of common interest,” but the statute is intended to emphasize that no such client “nor the successor in interest of…”
Show all 26 citing cases →
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.