statutory attorney-client privilege in California

2023(Ibid.) In addressing the defendant’s claims, the Alexander court perceived “five distinct possible grounds for claims of error: (1) a statutory violation of Evidence Code section 954, the attorney-client privilege; (2) a violation of his federal Sixth Amendment right to counsel; (3) a violation of his federal Fifth Amendment due process right to a fair trial; (4) a violation of his federal Fifth Amendment right to substantive due process; and (5) a violation of his state constitutional right to counsel.” (Ibid.) The Alexander court rejected the defendant’s claim the interception violated the

2017Evidence Code section 954 affords the client "a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between the client and lawyer." ( Zurich , supra , 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1494 , 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 833 .) Absent actual disclosure, or a demand for disclosure, the statute is simply not implicated. ( People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846 , 887, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 , 235 P.3d 873 ( Alexander ).) In Alexander , we rejected the defendant's claim that a police detective's interception and recording of a three-way call between the defendant, his mothe

2017Evidence Code section 954 affords the client "a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between the client and lawyer." ( Zurich , supra , 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1494 , 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 833 .) Absent actual disclosure, or a demand for disclosure, the statute is simply not implicated. ( People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846 , 887, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 , 235 P.3d 873 ( Alexander ).) In Alexander , we rejected the defendant's claim that a police detective's interception and recording of a three-way call between the defendant, his mothe

2017Evidence Code section 954 affords the client "a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between the client and lawyer." ( Zurich , supra , 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1494 , 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 833 .) Absent actual disclosure, or a demand for disclosure, the statute is simply not implicated. ( People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846 , 887, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 , 235 P.3d 873 ( Alexander ).) In Alexander , we rejected the defendant's claim that a police detective's interception and recording of a three-way call between the defendant, his mothe

2014The CPRA defines “public record” as a “writing containing information relating to the conduct of the people’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” (§ 6252, subd. (e).) The CPRA exempts certain public records from disclosure, including “[r]ecords, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.” (§ 6254, subd. (k).) “By its reference to the privileges contained in the Evidence Code, ... the

2014(Ibid.) Our Supreme Court concluded that the in-house attorney could pursue a wrongful discharge claim against his employer based on both theories: a violation of an implied agreement not to terminate except for cause; and a violation of public policy, based on retaliation, “provided it can be established without breaching the attorney-client privilege or unduly endangering the values lying at the heart of the professional relationship.” (General Dynamics, supra, 1 Cal.4th at pp. 1169, 1179, 1189.) As to the effect of attorney-client confidences on an in-house counsel’s ability to prove a reta

2012Two Court of Appeal decisions, Rodriguez v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1260 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 120 ] and Andrade v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1609 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ], have held that section 1054.6 absolves the defendant from disclosing, prior to trial, the otherwise discoverable written or recorded statement of an expert witness he or she intends to call (§ 1054.3, subd. (a)(1)) if the statement includes or discusses communications from the defendant to the expert that are protected by the statutory attorney-client privilege.

2012Two Court of Appeal decisions, Rodriguez v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1260 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 120 ] and Andrade v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1609 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ], have held that section 1054.6 absolves the defendant from disclosing, prior to trial, the otherwise discoverable written or recorded statement of an expert witness he or she intends to call (§ 1054.3, subd. (a)(1)) if the statement includes or discusses communications from the defendant to the expert that are protected by the statutory attorney-client privilege.

2012Two Court of Appeal decisions, Rodriguez v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1260 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 120 ] and Andrade v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1609 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ], have held that section 1054.6 absolves the defendant from disclosing, prior to trial, the otherwise discoverable written or recorded statement of an expert witness he or she intends to call (§ 1054.3, subd. (a)(1)) if the statement includes or discusses communications from the defendant to the expert that are protected by the statutory attorney-client privilege.

2012Two Court of Appeal decisions, Rodriguez v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1260 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 120 ] and Andrade v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1609 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ], have held that section 1054.6 absolves the defendant from disclosing, prior to trial, the otherwise discoverable written or recorded statement of an expert witness he or she intends to call (§ 1054.3, subd. (a)(1)) if the statement includes or discusses communications from the defendant to the expert that are protected by the statutory attorney-client privilege.

1998Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 732 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 388 P.2d 700 ]; Hoiles, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 1198 .) Although shareholders have some rights to corporate information which are not enjoyed by the general public, “shareholder status does not in and of itself entitle an individual to unfettered access to corporate confidences and secrets.” (Goldstein v. Lees (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 614, 621 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 253 ].) 4 In California, the appellate courts have refused to carve out a shareholder exception to the statutory attorney-client privilege accorded to corpo