State Fund rule in California

2025While McDermott concluded that the receipt of “materials that are not obviously or clearly privileged . . . triggers a more limited response” than the receipt of “materials that obviously or clearly appear to be privileged,” it does not state that a party who receives documents that are not clearly privileged may do whatever they wish with the documents after notifying the privilege holder. ( McDermott, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1108-1109.) To the contrary, McDermott explained that “[a]llowing opposing counsel to avoid their State Fund obligations any time they can fashion a colorable argum

2025While McDermott concluded that the receipt of “materials that are not obviously or clearly privileged . . . triggers a more limited response” than the receipt of “materials that obviously or clearly appear to be privileged,” it does not state that a party who receives documents that are not clearly privileged may do whatever they wish with the documents after notifying the privilege holder. ( McDermott, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1108-1109.) To the contrary, McDermott explained that “[a]llowing opposing counsel to avoid their State Fund obligations any time they can fashion a colorable argum

2026The parties may then proceed to resolve the situation by agreement or may resort to the court for guidance with the benefit of protective orders and other judicial intervention as may be justified.” 5 (Id. at pp. 656–657.) While State Fund expressly left open the possibility that an attorney’s noncompliance with the obligations it set forth could merit disqualification in an appropriate case (State Fund, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 657 ), the Supreme Court later confirmed in Rico that disqualification is an available remedy for a State Fund rule violation (Rico, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 819 ).

2025The parties may then proceed to resolve the situation by agreement or may resort to the court for guidance with the benefit of protective orders or other judicial intervention as may be justified.” (State Fund, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 656-657.) 2 In Rico, supra, 42 Cal.4th 807, 817-818 , our state Supreme Court approved the “State Fund rule” and extended it to documents covered by the work product privilege, describing the rule as a “fair and reasonable approach.” (See also Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 1187 [California Supreme Court “embraced the State Fund holdin

2026(Clark, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 42 .) During 6 The State Fund rule was later codified by the State Bar of California in rule 4.4 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

2023The parties may then proceed to resolve the situation by agreement or may resort to the court for guidance with the benefit of protective orders and other judicial intervention as may be justified.” (State Fund, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 656–657.) In Rico, our Supreme Court adopted the State Fund rule as “a fair and reasonable approach” that “addresses the practical problem of inadvertent disclosure” in the context of modern discovery practices. ( Rico, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pp. 817–818.) Our high court recognized the State Fund rule establishes “an objective standard” that asks “whether rea

2025The parties may then proceed to resolve the situation by agreement or may resort to the court for guidance with the benefit of protective orders or other judicial intervention as may be justified.” (State Fund, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 656-657.)2 In Rico, supra, 42 Cal.4th 807, 817-818 , our state Supreme Court approved the “State Fund rule” and extended it to documents covered by the work product privilege, describing the rule as a “fair and reasonable approach.” (See also Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 1187 [California Supreme Court “embraced the State Fund holding

2025The parties may then proceed to resolve the situation by agreement or may resort to the court for guidance with the benefit of protective orders or other judicial intervention as may be justified.” (State Fund, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 656-657.) 2 In Rico, supra, 42 Cal.4th 807, 817-818 , our state Supreme Court approved the “State Fund rule” and extended it to documents covered by the work product privilege, describing the rule as a “fair and reasonable approach.” (See also Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 1187 [California Supreme Court “embraced the State Fund holdin

2026The parties may then proceed to resolve the situation by agreement or may resort to the court for guidance with the benefit of protective orders and other judicial intervention as may be justified.” 5 (Id. at pp. 656–657.) While State Fund expressly left open the possibility that an attorney’s noncompliance with the obligations it set forth could merit disqualification in an appropriate case (State Fund, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 657 ), the Supreme Court later confirmed in Rico that disqualification is an available remedy for a State Fund rule violation (Rico, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 819 ).

2026The State Fund rule “is fundamentally based on the importance which the attorney-client privilege holds in the jurisprudence of this state.” (State Fund, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 657 .) State Fund expressed two primary justifications for it: (1) “a client should not enter the attorney-client relationship fearful that an inadvertent error by its counsel could result in the waiver of privileged information or the retention of the privileged information by an adversary who might abuse and disseminate the information with impunity”; and (2) “it has long been recognized that ‘“[a]n 19 attorney h

2019It does not matter whether the information has been provided deliberately or inadvertently (e.g., McDermott Will & Emery, at p. 1109 [“[a]lthough the State Fund rule originated in the context of one attorney inadvertently producing his client’s privileged documents to the opponent’s attorney during litigation, neither the statement of the rule nor the policy underlying it supports limiting the scope of the rule to that one circumstance”]; see Clark, at pp. 43-44, 52 [applying State Fund rule to stolen documents]) or by an employee of the opposing party’s counsel or the opposing party itself (c

2019It does not matter whether the information has been provided deliberately or inadvertently (e.g., McDermott Will & Emery , at p. 1109, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 47 ["[a]lthough the State Fund rule originated in the context of one attorney inadvertently producing his client's privileged documents to the opponent's attorney during litigation, neither the statement of the rule nor the policy underlying it supports limiting the scope of the rule to that one circumstance"]; see Clark , at pp. 43-44, 52, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 361 [applying State Fund rule to stolen documents] ) or by an employee of the opposing par

2019It does not matter whether the information has been provided deliberately or inadvertently (e.g., McDermott Will & Emery , at p. 1109, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 47 ["[a]lthough the State Fund rule originated in the context of one attorney inadvertently producing his client's privileged documents to the opponent's attorney during litigation, neither the statement of the rule nor the policy underlying it supports limiting the scope of the rule to that one circumstance"]; see Clark , at pp. 43-44, 52, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 361 [applying State Fund rule to stolen documents] ) or by an employee of the opposing par

2019It does not matter whether the information has been provided deliberately or inadvertently (e.g., McDermott Will & Emery , at p. 1109, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 47 ["[a]lthough the State Fund rule originated in the context of one attorney inadvertently producing his client's privileged documents to the opponent's attorney during litigation, neither the statement of the rule nor the policy underlying it supports limiting the scope of the rule to that one circumstance"]; see Clark , at pp. 43-44, 52, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 361 [applying State Fund rule to stolen documents] ) or by an employee of the opposing par

2017(Ghirardo v. Antonioli (1994) 8 Cal.4th 791, 799 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 883 P.2d 960 ] [when the decisive facts are undisputed we are confronted with a queshon of law].) Gibson Dunn’s discovery of the Blaskey e-mail in the MWE/MHI client file is plainly too far removed from Dick’s arguably inadvertent disclosure to Ninetta.

2017(Ghirardo v. Antonioli (2007) 8 Cal.4th 791, 799 [when the decisive facts are undisputed we are confronted with a question of law].) Gibson Dunn‟s discovery of the Blaskey e-mail in the MWE/MHI client file is plainly too far removed from Dick‟s arguably inadvertent disclosure to Ninetta.

2017Code, § 917, subd. (a); Costco, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 733 ; Pham, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 665 .) Under these circumstances, the Blaskey e-mail was a presumptively privileged document and therefore was an “obviously privileged” document under the State Fund rule.

2017Code, § 917, subd. (a); Costco, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 733 ; Pham, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 665 .) Under these circumstances, the Blaskey e-mail was a presumptively privileged document and therefore was an “obviously privileged” document under the State Fund rule.

2017Code, § 917, subd. (a); Costco, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 733 ; Pham, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 665 .) Under these circumstances, the Blaskey e-mail was a presumptively privileged document and therefore was an “obviously privileged” document under the State Fund rule.

2017Code, § 917, subd. (a); Costco, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 733 ; Pham, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 665 .) Under these circumstances, the Blaskey e-mail was a presumptively privileged document and therefore was an “obviously privileged” document under the State Fund rule.

2007If the document producer is confronted with the additional prospect that any privileged documents inadvertently produced will become fair game for the opposition, the minute screening and re-screening that inevitably would follow not only would add enormously to that burden but would slow the pace of discovery to a degree sharply at odds with the general goal of expediting litigation.” Finally, we note that “[a]n attorney has an obligation not only to protect his client’s interests but also to respect the legitimate interests of fellow members of the bar, the judiciary, and the administration

2007If the document producer is confronted with the additional prospect that any privileged documents inadvertently produced will become fair game for the opposition, the minute screening and re-screening that inevitably would follow not only would add enormously to that burden but would slow the pace of discovery to a degree sharply at odds with the general goal of expediting litigation.” Finally, we note that “[a]n attorney has an obligation not only to protect his client’s interests but also to respect the legitimate interests of fellow members of the bar, the judiciary, and the administration