crime-fraud exception in California

2025Code, § 956, subd. (a).) “ ‘To invoke the Evidence Code section 956 exception to the attorney-client privilege, the proponent must make a prima facie showing that the services of the lawyer “were sought or obtained” to enable or to aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud.’ ” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 643 ; see Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 201, 213, fn. 4 .) A “mere assertion of fraud is insufficient.” (BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1262 .) We review a trial cou

2025Code, § 956, subd. (a).) “ ‘To invoke the Evidence Code section 956 exception to the attorney-client privilege, the proponent must make a prima facie showing that the services of the lawyer “were sought or obtained” to enable or to aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud.’ ” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 643 ; see Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 201, 213, fn. 4 .) A “mere assertion of fraud is insufficient.” (BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1262 .) We review a trial cou

2026In order to demonstrate the applicability of the crime fraud exception, the party “ ‘must make a prima facie showing that the services of the lawyer “were sought or obtained” to enable or to aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud. [Citation.]’ ” (State Farm, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 643 .) 2.

2025Code, § 956, subd. (a).) “ ‘To invoke the Evidence Code section 956 exception to the attorney-client privilege, the proponent must make a prima facie showing that the services of the lawyer “were sought or obtained” to enable or to aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud.’ ” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 643 ; see Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 201, 213, fn. 4 .) A “mere assertion of fraud is insufficient.” (BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1262 .) We review a trial cou

2025Code, § 956, subd. (a).) “ ‘To invoke the Evidence Code section 956 exception to the attorney-client privilege, the proponent must make a prima facie showing that the services of the lawyer “were sought or obtained” to enable or to aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud.’ ” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 643 ; see Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 201, 213, fn. 4 .) A “mere assertion of fraud is insufficient.” (BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1262 .) We review a trial cou

2025Code, § 956, subd. (a).) “ ‘To invoke the Evidence Code section 956 exception to the attorney-client privilege, the proponent must make a prima facie showing that the services of the lawyer “were sought or obtained” to enable or to aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or fraud.’ ” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 643 ; see Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 201, 213, fn. 4 .) A “mere assertion of fraud is insufficient.” (BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1262 .) We review a trial cou

2024(Bauman & Rose, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 1769 .) The crime-fraud exception “cannot open defendant’s files or give plaintiffs carte blanche with respect to attorney-client communications.

2001It appears, therefore, that the probable *1091 cause showing to obtain a search warrant does not satisfy the showing required to establish the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.” (People v. Superior Court (Bauman & Rose) (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1757, 1768-1769 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 734 ], citations omitted.) Here, there was no prima facie showing to support a finding of the crime/fraud exception.

2013(See Glade, supra, 76 Cal.App.3d at p. 746 [attorney’s misuse of confidential information to defraud others does not implicate crime-fraud exception if client did not seek legal assistance to further this goal and was unaware of attorney’s contemplated wrongdoing].) 10 In sum, we conclude respondent court erred in overruling petitioners’ objections to the production of documents and responses to deposition questions that contravened their attorney-client privilege as Golden State failed to demonstrate that the crime-fraud exception applied in this case. 8 DISPOSITION The accelerated Palma proc

1988(Glade v. Superior Court (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 738, 745 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 119 ].) The crime-fraud exception expressly applies to communications ordinarily shielded by the attorney-client privilege.

2026(See Fremont, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 1166 [“[t]he defendant cannot defeat the plaintiff ’s evidentiary showing [for purposes of opposing an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike] by presenting evidence that merely contradicts that evidence but does not establish as a matter of law that the plaintiff cannot prevail”].) We likewise reject Perez’s 25 argument that the litigation privilege bars Jeffers’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.

2025Code, § 956.5 exception to the attorney-client privilege allowed defendant’s former attorney to testify that defendant told his attorney he would kill witnesses if he was not successful in bribing them]; Dickerson v. Superior Court (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 93, 100 [attorney may be compelled to testify if moving party makes prima facie showing that the crime-fraud exception applies]; Titmas v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 738, 745 [party seeking testimony from an attorney must “demonstrate that the privilege did not apply, an exception existed, or that there was an express or implied waive

2025Code, § 956.5 exception to the attorney-client privilege allowed defendant’s former attorney to testify that defendant told his attorney he would kill witnesses if he was not successful in bribing them]; Dickerson v. Superior Court (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 93, 100 [attorney may be compelled to testify if moving party makes prima facie showing that the crime-fraud exception applies]; Titmas v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 738, 745 [party seeking testimony from an attorney must “demonstrate that the privilege did not apply, an exception existed, or that there was an express or implied waive

2021(See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 645 [Discussing application of the crime- fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege] (State Farm).) “A communication between married persons is ‘presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden to establish that the communication was not confidential.’ ” (Von Villas, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 220 ; § 917.) However, the marital communication privilege is waived if the holders of the privilege, without coercion, have “disclosed a significant part of the comm

2017No. 2013-188, at p. 1; see Coldren v. Hart, King & Coldren, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 237, 250, fn. 8 [ 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 644 ] [although not binding on courts, formal opinions from California State Bar may be persuasive authority].) That opinion presents the hypothetical of an attorney who sues a company for fraud and receives an anonymous e-mail and attachment from a former company employee.

2017For example, Formal Opinion No. 2013-188 of the California State Bar Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (State Bar, Formal Opinion No. 2013-188) concludes an attorney‟s State Fund duties are triggered when the attorney receives a communication that is presumptively privileged as a confidential communication between another attorney and his or her client, even if “the [receiving] attorney reasonably believes that the communication may not be privileged because of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.” (State Bar, Formal Opinion No. 2013-188, at p

2015B "A trial court's ruling on a disqualification motion is reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. [Citations.] 'In exercising its discretion, the trial 16 court must make a reasoned judgment that complies with applicable legal principles and policies.' [Citations.] 'The order is subject to reversal only when there is no reasonable basis for the trial court's decision.' [Citation.] " 'In deciding whether the trial court abused its discretion, "[w]e are . . . bound . . . by the substantial evidence rule." ' [Citation.] The trial court's order is ' "presumed correct; all inte

2015B "A trial court's ruling on a disqualification motion is reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. [Citations.] 'In exercising its discretion, the trial 16 court must make a reasoned judgment that complies with applicable legal principles and policies.' [Citations.] 'The order is subject to reversal only when there is no reasonable basis for the trial court's decision.' [Citation.] " 'In deciding whether the trial court abused its discretion, "[w]e are . . . bound . . . by the substantial evidence rule." ' [Citation.] The trial court's order is ' "presumed correct; all inte

2013The quoted language clearly requires an intention on the part of the client to abuse the attorney-client relationship . . . .’ [Citations.]” (People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 623 (Clark), quoting Glade v. Superior Court (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 738, 746 (Glade), citing to BP Alaska Exploration, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 1249 .) Concededly, “Evidence Code section 956 does not require a completed crime or fraud.

2010Companies v. Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 436, 447 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 871 ] [communication must be “ ‘made in contemplation of crime’ ” for exception to apply].) “[I]t is the intent of the client upon which attention must be focused and not that of the lawyers.” (State Farm & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 645 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 ].) The trial court in a discovery ruling in the individual action held the Estate had not established the applicability of the crime-fraud exception and reaffirmed that ruling in the derivative action.

2010Companies v. Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 436, 447 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 871 ] [communication must be “ ‘made in contemplation of crime’ ” for exception to apply].) “[I]t is the intent of the client upon which attention must be focused and not that of the lawyers.” (State Farm & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 645 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 ].) The trial court in a discovery ruling in the individual action held the Estate had not established the applicability of the crime-fraud exception and reaffirmed that ruling in the derivative action.

2010(See McDermott, Will & Emery v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 378, 381 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 622 ] (McDermott, Will) [derivative legal malpractice action against outside corporate counsel not permitted; “in the absence of a waiver by the corporate client, the third party attorney is effectively foreclosed from mounting any meaningful defense . . .”].) The court rejected the Estate’s contention the privilege ceased to exist upon Motion Graphix’s dissolution or was lost by virtue of the crime-fraud exception based on its earlier ruling in the individual action denying the Estate’s motion to co

2010(See McDermott, Will & Emery v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 378, 381 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 622 ] (McDermott, Will) [derivative legal malpractice action against outside corporate counsel not permitted; “in the absence of a waiver by the corporate client, the third party attorney is effectively foreclosed from mounting any meaningful defense . . .”].) The court rejected the Estate’s contention the privilege ceased to exist upon Motion Graphix’s dissolution or was lost by virtue of the crime-fraud exception based on its earlier ruling in the individual action denying the Estate’s motion to co

2010(See People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 196-197 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123 , 940 P.2d 710 ] [trial *221 court’s evidentiary rulings normally reviewed for abuse of discretion]; BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1261-1262 [motion to compel discovery involving crime-fraud exception cannot be overturned in absence of an abuse of discretion].) However, a demurrer based on McDermott, Will is unlike most pleading motions; for it asks the trial court to speculate about matters in the future (can the lawyer-defendant adequately defend the case if privileged in

2010(See People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 196-197 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123 , 940 P.2d 710 ] [trial *221 court’s evidentiary rulings normally reviewed for abuse of discretion]; BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1261-1262 [motion to compel discovery involving crime-fraud exception cannot be overturned in absence of an abuse of discretion].) However, a demurrer based on McDermott, Will is unlike most pleading motions; for it asks the trial court to speculate about matters in the future (can the lawyer-defendant adequately defend the case if privileged in