6 California opinions name it 3 courts 2016–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
L.A. Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.green2 sentences2025Rather, the heartland of the privilege protects those communications that bear some relationship to the attorney’s provision of legal consultation.” (Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, 294 (Los Angeles County).) Petitioner argues that any potential referral that her attorney provided concerning where she should seek treatment is covered by the attorney-client privilege. 2022Rather, the heartland of the privilege protects those communications that bear some relationship to the attorney's provision of legal consultation.” (Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, 294 ; accord, Wood v. Superior Court (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 562 , 576.) Thus, the attorney-client privilege does not apply where a person consults an attorney for advice in a nonlegal capacity, for example, when an attorney is acting “‘merely as a negotiator for the client or is providing business advice.’” (Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors, at p. 296; see Watt Indu | 2 | 3 |
Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2023(Costco Wholesale, supra, 47 Cal.4th 725, 733 ; see also People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1208 , quoting D.I. 2023(Costco Wholesale, supra, 47 Cal.4th 725, 733 ; see also People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1208 , quoting D.I. | 2 | 3 |
Roberts v. City of Palmdalegreen2 sentences2016(See Roberts , supra , 5 Cal.4th at p. 371 , 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330 , 853 P.2d 496 [explaining that "under the Evidence Code, the attorney-client privilege applies to confidential communications within the scope of the attorney-client relationship" (italics added) ]; see also Costco , supra , 47 Cal.4th at p. 743 , 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 758 , 219 P.3d 736 (conc. opn. of George, C.J.) [Evid. 2016Rather, the heartland of the privilege protects those communications that bear some relationship to the attorney’s provision of legal consultation.” (Id. at p. 10, italics added.) (footnote continued from previous page) p. 10.) As I explain, post, this interpretation of sections 954 and 952 is far too narrow and contrary to existing authority. 3 Government Code section 6254, subdivision (k) states that the Public Records Act does not require disclosure of the following records: “Records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limi | 1 | 2 |
People v. Gionisgreen1 sentence2023(Costco Wholesale, supra, 47 Cal.4th 725, 733 ; see also People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1208 , quoting D.I. | 1 | 1 |
Watt Industries, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2022Rather, the heartland of the privilege protects those communications that bear some relationship to the attorney's provision of legal consultation.” (Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, 294 ; accord, Wood v. Superior Court (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 562 , 576.) Thus, the attorney-client privilege does not apply where a person consults an attorney for advice in a nonlegal capacity, for example, when an attorney is acting “‘merely as a negotiator for the client or is providing business advice.’” (Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors, at p. 296; see Watt Indu | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
HLC Properties, Ltd. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2022(See HLC Properties, Ltd. v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 54, 60 ; see also Sprengel v. Zbylut (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1028 , 1042 [where the facts are undisputed, “[t]he existence of an attorney-client relationship involves a question of law that we review de novo”].) “The party claiming a privilege shoulders the burden of showing that the evidence it seeks to suppress falls within the terms of an applicable statute.” (HLC Properties, at p. 59.) 31 doctors to Maximo, like an attorney providing business advice, in no way was the rendering of confidential legal services falling within the att | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.