lawyer-client privilege in New Jersey

2002We noted that the psychologist-patient privilege should be considered analogous to the lawyer-client privilege, Runyon, supra, 322 N.J.Super. at 242-45 , 730 A. 2d 881 (citing Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 297 , 696 A. 2d 556 (1997)).

2002We noted that the psychologist-patient privilege should be considered analogous to the lawyer-client privilege, Runyon, supra, 322 N.J.Super. at 242-45 , 730 A. 2d 881 (citing Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 297 , 696 A. 2d 556 (1997)).

2013Orange, 416 N.J.

2013Orange, 416 N.J.

2002We noted that the psychologist-patient privilege should be considered analogous to the lawyer-client privilege, Runyon, supra, 322 N.J.Super. at 242-45 , 730 A. 2d 881 (citing Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 297 , 696 A. 2d 556 (1997)).

2002We noted that the psychologist-patient privilege should be considered analogous to the lawyer-client privilege, Runyon, supra, 322 N.J.Super. at 242-45 , 730 A. 2d 881 (citing Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 297 , 696 A. 2d 556 (1997)).

2000In Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Excom Realty, Inc., 279 N.J.Super. 442 , 652 A. 2d 1273 (Law Div.1994), the court stated that "[i]nadvertent disclosure through mere negligence or misfortune should not be deemed to abrogate the lawyer-client privilege." Id. at 445 , 652 A. 2d 1273 (citing J.G., supra ).

2000In Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Excom Realty, Inc., 279 N.J.Super. 442 , 652 A. 2d 1273 (Law Div.1994), the court stated that "[i]nadvertent disclosure through mere negligence or misfortune should not be deemed to abrogate the lawyer-client privilege." Id. at 445 , 652 A. 2d 1273 (citing J.G., supra ).

1989As the court said in Fellerman , the lawyer-client privilege is “to be applied in a manner that will be consistent with the necessities of judicial policy and with the essential purpose the privilege is designed to serve.” Id. at 501 , 493 A.2d 1239 .

1989As the court said in Fellerman , the lawyer-client privilege is “to be applied in a manner that will be consistent with the necessities of judicial policy and with the essential purpose the privilege is designed to serve.” Id. at 501 , 493 A.2d 1239 .

1998See N.J.R.E. 530 (to be effective, a waiver must have been made “with knowledge of [the] right or privilege”); State v. J.G., 261 N.J.Super. 409, 419-21 , 619 A.2d 232 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 133 N.J. 436 , 627 A.2d 1142 (1993) (counselor’s inadvertent disclosure of confidential files does not constitute waiver of victim-counselor privilege); Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Excom Realty, Inc., 279 N.J.Super. 442, 445 , 652 A.2d 1273 (Law Div.1994) (“Inadvertent disclosure through mere negligence or misfortune should not be deemed to abrogate the lawyer-client privilege.”) (citation omitted

1998See N.J.R.E. 530 (to be effective, a waiver must have been made “with knowledge of [the] right or privilege”); State v. J.G., 261 N.J.Super. 409, 419-21 , 619 A.2d 232 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 133 N.J. 436 , 627 A.2d 1142 (1993) (counselor’s inadvertent disclosure of confidential files does not constitute waiver of victim-counselor privilege); Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Excom Realty, Inc., 279 N.J.Super. 442, 445 , 652 A.2d 1273 (Law Div.1994) (“Inadvertent disclosure through mere negligence or misfortune should not be deemed to abrogate the lawyer-client privilege.”) (citation omitted

2010Plaintiff cites United States v. Robinson, 121 F.3d 971, 975 (5th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1065 , 118 S.Ct. 731 , 139 L.Ed.2d 669 (1998), also cited by the trial court in its decision, for the proposition that “documents do not become cloaked with the lawyer-client privilege merely by the fact of them being passed from client to lawyer.” We agree.

2010Plaintiff cites United States v. Robinson, 121 F.3d 971, 975 (5th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1065 , 118 S.Ct. 731 , 139 L.Ed.2d 669 (1998), also cited by the trial court in its decision, for the proposition that “documents do not become cloaked with the lawyer-client privilege merely by the fact of them being passed from client to lawyer.” We agree.

2009Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 , 101 S.Ct. 677, 682 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584, 591 (1981); Halbach v. Boyman, 369 N.J.Super. 323 , 848 A.2d 880 (App.Div.2004).

2009Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 , 101 S.Ct. 677, 682 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584, 591 (1981); Halbach v. Boyman, 369 N.J.Super. 323 , 848 A.2d 880 (App.Div.2004).

2000"It is clear that the psychologist-patient privilege should be treated similarly to the lawyer-client privilege." Runyon v. Smith, 322 N.J.Super. 236, 242 , 730 A. 2d 881 (App.Div.1999) (citing Kinsella, supra, 150 N.J. at 297 , 696 A. 2d 556 ), aff'd 163 N.J. 439 , 749 A. 2d 852 (2000).

2000"It is clear that the psychologist-patient privilege should be treated similarly to the lawyer-client privilege." Runyon v. Smith, 322 N.J.Super. 236, 242 , 730 A. 2d 881 (App.Div.1999) (citing Kinsella, supra, 150 N.J. at 297 , 696 A. 2d 556 ), aff'd 163 N.J. 439 , 749 A. 2d 852 (2000).

2000See generally, State v. Davis, 116 N.J. 341, 362-63 , 561 A. 2d 1082 (1989); State v. Loponio, 85 N.J.L. 357 , 88 A. 1045 (E. & A.1913); State v. Tapia, 113 N.J.Super. 322 , 273 A. 2d 769 (App.Div.1971).

2000See generally, State v. Davis, 116 N.J. 341, 362-63 , 561 A. 2d 1082 (1989); State v. Loponio, 85 N.J.L. 357 , 88 A. 1045 (E. & A.1913); State v. Tapia, 113 N.J.Super. 322 , 273 A. 2d 769 (App.Div.1971).

2000"Patients are aware of the privilege and its limits because psycho-therapists generally believe themselves to be ethically bound at the outset of the therapy relationship to inform their patients of the limits of confidentiality." Kinsella, supra, 150 N.J. at 296 , 696 A. 2d 556 (citing Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 , 13 n. 12, 116 S.Ct. 1923 , 1930 n. 12, 135 L.Ed. 2d 337 , 347 n. 12 (1996)).

2000"Patients are aware of the privilege and its limits because psycho-therapists generally believe themselves to be ethically bound at the outset of the therapy relationship to inform their patients of the limits of confidentiality." Kinsella, supra, 150 N.J. at 296 , 696 A. 2d 556 (citing Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 , 13 n. 12, 116 S.Ct. 1923 , 1930 n. 12, 135 L.Ed. 2d 337 , 347 n. 12 (1996)).

2000See generally, State v. Davis, 116 N.J. 341, 362-63 , 561 A. 2d 1082 (1989); State v. Loponio, 85 N.J.L. 357 , 88 A. 1045 (E. & A.1913); State v. Tapia, 113 N.J.Super. 322 , 273 A. 2d 769 (App.Div.1971).

2000See generally, State v. Davis, 116 N.J. 341, 362-63 , 561 A. 2d 1082 (1989); State v. Loponio, 85 N.J.L. 357 , 88 A. 1045 (E. & A.1913); State v. Tapia, 113 N.J.Super. 322 , 273 A. 2d 769 (App.Div.1971).

1999Id. at 88 , 492 A. 2d 1020 .

1999Id. at 88 , 492 A. 2d 1020 .

1998See N.J.R.E. 530 (to be effective, a waiver must have been made “with knowledge of [the] right or privilege”); State v. J.G., 261 N.J.Super. 409, 419-21 , 619 A.2d 232 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 133 N.J. 436 , 627 A.2d 1142 (1993) (counselor’s inadvertent disclosure of confidential files does not constitute waiver of victim-counselor privilege); Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Excom Realty, Inc., 279 N.J.Super. 442, 445 , 652 A.2d 1273 (Law Div.1994) (“Inadvertent disclosure through mere negligence or misfortune should not be deemed to abrogate the lawyer-client privilege.”) (citation omitted

1994Disclosure of client information is permissible if the client consents after consultation. [ Id. at 405-07, 511 A. 2d 609 .] To hold that the inadvertent production of a privileged document is a waiver of the lawyer-client privilege would render nugatory this state's strong public policy favoring the confidentiality *447 of lawyer-client communications embodied in statute, rules of evidence, rules of professional ethics, and case law.

1993Jacobson v. Balle, 75 N.J. 24 , 379 A.2d 255 (1977), the Appellate Division rejected the claim that the testimony of a case-work supervisor for a county welfare board should be protected by the lawyer-client privilege.

1993Jacobson v. Balle, 75 N.J. 24 , 379 A. 2d 255 (1977), the Appellate Division rejected the claim that the testimony of a case-work supervisor for a county welfare board should be protected by the lawyer-client privilege.

1993Id. at 378, 375 A.2d 1202 .

1993Id. at 378, 375 A. 2d 1202 .

1989Cf. Reisch v. J & L Holding Company, 443 N.Y.S.2d 638 , 111 Misc.2d 72 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1981) (names and addresses of witnesses not work product).

1989Cf. Reisch v. J & L Holding Company, 443 N.Y.S.2d 638 , 111 Misc.2d 72 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1981) (names and addresses of witnesses not work product).

1989In Macey v. Rollins Environmental Services, 179 N.J.Super. 535 , 432 A.2d 960 (App.Div.1981), numerous individuals were injured after an explosion and fire occurred at defendant’s chemical waste disposal plant.

1989In Macey v. Rollins Environmental Services, 179 N.J.Super. 535 , 432 A.2d 960 (App.Div.1981), numerous individuals were injured after an explosion and fire occurred at defendant’s chemical waste disposal plant.

1982Thus, it is logical to conclude that the anti-waiver clause in N.J.S.A. 45:14B-28 does not apply to statutorily created waivers in other parts of the New Jersey statutes, the court rules, or the rules of evidence, and therefore the psychologist privilege and psychiatrist privilege statute should be construed together even though the Appellate Division declined to make that determination in Kerr v. Kerr, 129 N.J.

1981Its purpose is "to encourage clients to make full disclosure to their attorneys." Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 , 96 S.Ct. 1569 , 48 L.Ed. 2d 39 (1976).

1981Its purpose is "to encourage clients to make full disclosure to their attorneys." Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 , 96 S.Ct. 1569 , 48 L.Ed. 2d 39 (1976).

1981"The lawyer-client privilege rests on the need for the advocate and counselor to know all that relates to the client's reasons for seeking representation...." Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 51 , 100 S.Ct. 906 , 63 L.Ed. 2d 186 (1980).

1981"The lawyer-client privilege rests on the need for the advocate and counselor to know all that relates to the client's reasons for seeking representation...." Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 51 , 100 S.Ct. 906 , 63 L.Ed. 2d 186 (1980).