attorney-client privilege in Kentucky

2005See also Lexington Public Library v. Clark, 90 S.W.3d 53, 59 (Ky.2002) for a discussion of Kentucky's rejection, pursuant to KRE 503, of the "control group” definition of "representative of the client” and the adoption of the federal standard wherein a communication made by an employee acting within the scope of employment is also protected by the attorney-client privilege. 15 . 90 S.W.3d at 59 . 16 .

2005See also Lexington Public Library v. Clark, 90 S.W.3d 53, 59 (Ky.2002) for a discussion of Kentucky's rejection, pursuant to KRE 503, of the "control group” definition of "representative of the client” and the adoption of the federal standard wherein a communication made by an employee acting within the scope of employment is also protected by the attorney-client privilege. 15 . 90 S.W.3d at 59 . 16 .

2023(Emphasis added.)” Stidham, 74 S.W.3d at 723-24 .

2017Library v. Clark, 90 S.W.3d 53, 60 (Ky. 2002). 6 Collins v. Braden, 384 S.W.3d 154, 159 (Ky. 2012). 7 Stidham v. Clark, 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (Ky. 2002). s See id. at 722-23 . 9 See Lexi.ngton Public Library, 90 S.W.3d at 62 . 10 See Collins, 384 S.W.3d at 161 . 5 Reynolds failed to present for in camera review any of his privileged information in any of the courts below.

2017See Baker v. Shapero, 203 S.W.3d 697 [Ky. 2006).

2017See Baker v. Shapero, 203 S.W.3d 697 (Ky. 2006).

2021See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395 , 101 S.Ct. 677 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981) (holding the attorney-client privilege protects the disclosure of communications but does not protect the client from disclosing the underlying facts.) The expectation of confidentiality is critical to the employee-union representative privilege.

2021See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395 , 101 S.Ct. 677 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981) (holding the attorney-client privilege protects the disclosure of communications but does not protect the client from disclosing the underlying facts.) The expectation of confidentiality is critical to the employee-union representative privilege.

2023In fact CR 26, which codifies the work-product doctrine, specifically exempts communications protected by the attorney-client privilege from its disclosure provisions.” Kopowski, 160 S.W.3d at 777 (internal citation omitted).

2022Luke Hospitals, Inc. v. Kopowski, 160 S.W.3d 771, 777 (Ky. 2005), the Kentucky Supreme Court explained that the attorney-client privilege could not be cast aside based on a lack of alternative sources for the information, because such an exception was not written into the rule: KRE 503 specifically delineates the circumstances in which the privilege gives way to other considerations.

2023All further proceedings on the issue of privilege shall be consistent with this Opinion.” Collins, 384 S.W.3d at 165 .

2017Library v. Clark, 90 S.W.3d 53, 60 (Ky. 2002). 6 Collins v. Braden, 384 S.W.3d 154, 159 (Ky. 2012). 7 stidham v. clark, 74 s.W.3d 719, 725 (Ky. 2002). 8 See id. at 722-23. 9 See Lexington Public Library, 90 S.W.3d at 62 . 10 See Collins, 384 S.W.3d at 161 .

2007The attorney-client privilege applies to a confidential communication "made to facilitate the client in his/her legal dilemma and made between two of the four parties listed in [KRE 503]: the client, the client's representatives, the lawyer, or the lawyer's representatives." Haney v. Yates, 40 S.W.3d 352, 354 (Ky.2000).

2007The attorney-client privilege applies to a confidential communication “made to facilitate the client in his/her legal dilemma and made between two of the four parties listed in [KRE 503]: the client, the client’s representatives, the lawyer, or the lawyer’s representatives.” Haney v. Yates, 40 S.W.3d 352, 354 (Ky.2000).

2016But it makes sense because the attorney-client privilege "protects only those disclosures necessary to obtain informed legal advice which might not have been made absent the privilege." Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976) (emphasis added).

2016But it makes sense because the attorney-client privilege "protects only those disclosures necessary to obtain informed legal advice which might not have been made absent the privilege." Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976) (emphasis added).

2016Hunt v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, LLC, 340 F. Supp. 2d 554, 556-57 (E.D.

2016Hunt v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, LLC, 340 F. Supp. 2d 554, 556-57 (E.D.

2016Pa. 2004) (noting that "privilege applies when ...the employees were sufficiently aware that they were being questioned in order that the corporation could obtain legal advice"); Bruce v. Christian, 113 F.R.D. 554, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) ("Attorney-client privilege extends to any employee communicating on matters within the scope of his employment when that employee is aware that he is being questioned in confidence in order for his employer to obtain legal advice."). 26 advice.

2016Pa. 2004) (noting that "privilege applies when ...the employees were sufficiently aware that they were being questioned in order that the corporation could obtain legal advice"); Bruce v. Christian, 113 F.R.D. 554, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) ("Attorney-client privilege extends to any employee communicating on matters within the scope of his employment when that employee is aware that he is being questioned in confidence in order for his employer to obtain legal advice."). 26 advice.

2005See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dickinson, 29 S.W.3d 796, 808 (Ky.2000) (noting that deposing an attorney or paralegal involved in the case would normally fall under the “certain special cases” exception because of the attorney-client privilege); id. at 801-02 (noting that a judge’s failure to include findings of fact as required by CR 34.01 in a premises inspection order met the exception); Bender, 343 S.W.2d at 803 (holding that a judge’s order for production of a doctor’s report was a violation of the then recently enacted Civil Rules and thus fell under the exception).

2004See id. at 801-02 (noting that a judge’s failure to include findings of fact as required by CR 34.01 in a premises inspection order met the exception); Bender, 343 S.W.2d at 803 (holding that a judge’s order for production of a doctor’s report was a violation of the then recently enacted Civil Rules and thus fell under the exception). 11 .

2005See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dickinson, 29 S.W.3d 796, 808 (Ky.2000) (noting that deposing an attorney or paralegal involved in the case would normally fall under the “certain special cases” exception because of the attorney-client privilege); id. at 801-02 (noting that a judge’s failure to include findings of fact as required by CR 34.01 in a premises inspection order met the exception); Bender, 343 S.W.2d at 803 (holding that a judge’s order for production of a doctor’s report was a violation of the then recently enacted Civil Rules and thus fell under the exception).

2005See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dickinson, 29 S.W.3d 796, 808 (Ky.2000) (noting that deposing an attorney or paralegal involved in the case would normally fall under the “certain special cases” exception because of the attorney-client privilege); id. at 801-02 (noting that a judge’s failure to include findings of fact as required by CR 34.01 in a premises inspection order met the exception); Bender, 343 S.W.2d at 803 (holding that a judge’s order for production of a doctor’s report was a violation of the then recently enacted Civil Rules and thus fell under the exception).

1991See, Hughes v. Meade, Ky., 453 S.W.2d 538 (1970); Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Smithhart, 183 Ky. 679 , 211 S.W. 441 (1919).

1981See Hughes v. Meade, Ky., 453 S.W.2d 538 (1970).

2025Id.

2010KRE 503(d)(1), Furtherance of Crime or Fraud, provides in pertinent part as follows: There is no privilege under this rule: (1) If the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud[.] “The attorney-client privilege is generally considered to be absolute as to communications made by or to a person advising with an attorney as to past transactions and offenses.” Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc. 807 S.W.2d 476, 487 (Ky.1991).

2026Builder maintains that it is not obligated to provide additional details regarding its billing pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. -31- As stated, an award of attorneys’ fees is “within the sound discretion of the trial court and [its] decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” Giacalone v. Giacalone, 876 S.W.2d 616, 620 (Ky. App. 1994) (citing Gentry v. Gentry, 798 S.W.2d 928 (Ky. 1990)); see also Wilhoit v. Wilhoit, 521 S.W.2d 512 (Ky. 1975).

2026Builder maintains that it is not obligated to provide additional details regarding its billing pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. -31- As stated, an award of attorneys’ fees is “within the sound discretion of the trial court and [its] decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” Giacalone v. Giacalone, 876 S.W.2d 616, 620 (Ky. App. 1994) (citing Gentry v. Gentry, 798 S.W.2d 928 (Ky. 1990)); see also Wilhoit v. Wilhoit, 521 S.W.2d 512 (Ky. 1975).

2025In such a proceeding, the attorney-client privilege would not prevent the attorney from testifying as to the client’s instructions regarding settlement.” Clark v. Burden, 917 S.W.2d 574, 577 (Ky. 1996) (citation omitted).

2025Attorney-client privilege is governed by Kentucky Rule of Evidence (KRE) 503, which provides: “[a] client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing a confidential communication made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client . . . .” KRE 503(b); Stinnett v. Commonwealth, 364 S.W.3d 70, 86 (Ky. 2011).

2025Attorney-client privilege is governed by Kentucky Rule of Evidence (KRE) 503, which provides: “[a] client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing a confidential communication made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client . . . .” KRE 503(b); Stinnett v. Commonwealth, 364 S.W.3d 70, 86 (Ky. 2011).

2025KRE 503(d)(3) specifically provides there is no privilege “[a]s to a communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by a lawyer to the client or by a client to the lawyer[.]” However, “the waiver applies only as to matters put in issue by the client’s motion.” Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 87 S.W.3d 8, 11 (Ky. 2002).

2024As to a testifying expert witness and the attorney-client privilege, the Kentucky Supreme Court has recognized that “confidentiality implies that the information will not be used to form the basis of expert testimony at trial; this is because expert testimony must be cross-examinable.” Sanborn v. Commonwealth, 892 S.W.2d 542, 550 (Ky. 1995).

2024A party ought not to be permitted to thwart effective cross- examination of a material witness whom he will call at trial merely by invoking the attorney-client privilege to prohibit pretrial discovery. [Footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted.] -13- Sanborn, 892 S.W.2d at 550 (citation omitted).

2022Similarly, in Dunn v. Commonwealth, 350 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Ky. 1961), which interpreted a previous version of the rule, the Court was unwilling to let the privilege be violated, even when there was no alternative basis to impeach the prosecution witness.

2021Standard Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., 828 F.2d 734, 745 (Fed.