law attorney-client privilege in Colorado

5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Colorado 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Law Offices of Bernard D. Morley, P. C. v. MacFarlanegreen colo · 1982 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2000–2020 2 sentences 2020Morley, P.C. v. MacFarlane, 647 P.2d 1215, 1220 (Colo. 1982). 2000Morley, P.C. v. MacFarlane, 647 P.2d 1215, 1221 (Colo.1982) (quoting A. v. District Court, 191 Colo. 10, 22 , 550 P.2d 815, 324 (1976)).	2	2
People v. Swearingengreen colo · 1982 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987 2 sentences 1987See People v. Swearingen, 649 P.2d 1102, 1104 (Colo.1982). [3] Because the attorney-client privilege prevents an attorney's "secretary, paralegal, legal assistant, stenographer, or clerk" from being examined concerning "any fact, the knowledge of which he has acquired in such capacity," the concurrence apparently contends that communications to agents of defense counsel are not privileged unless the agent is "similar" to an attorney's secretary, paralegal, legal assistant, stenographer, or clerk. 1987See People v. Swearingen, 649 P.2d 1102, 1104 (Colo.1982). .	2	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

Case	Cited	Years
A,B,C,D,E,F,G, & H v. District Court of the Second Judicial District green colo · 1976 1 sentence 2000Morley, P.C. v. MacFarlane, 647 P.2d 1215, 1221 (Colo.1982) (quoting A. v. District Court, 191 Colo. 10, 22 , 550 P.2d 815, 324 (1976)).	1	2000–2000
Miller v. DIST. CT., CITY & CTY. OF DENVER green colo · 1987 2 sentences 1987Colorado’s privilege statute is a codification of the common law attorney-client privilege, id. at 837 n. 2, and states in pertinent part: An attorney shall not be examined without the consent of his client as to any communication made by the client to him or his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment; nor shall an attorney’s secretary, paralegal, legal assistant, stenographer, or clerk be examined without the consent of his employer concerning any fact, the knowledge of which he has acquired in such capacity. § 13-90-107(l)(b), 6 C.R.S. (1986 Supp.). 1987Colorado's privilege statute is a codification of the common law attorney-client privilege, id. at 837 n. 2, and states in pertinent part: An attorney shall not be examined without the consent of his client as to any communication made by the client to him or his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment; nor shall an attorney's secretary, paralegal, legal assistant, stenographer, or clerk be examined without the consent of his employer concerning any fact, the knowledge of which he has acquired in such capacity. § 13-90-107(1)(b), 6 C.R.S. (1986 Supp.).	1	1987–1987

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-107 (5)

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.

Where else courts name it

OH 6 (2002–2024) IL 5 (1995–2015) CO 5 (1987–2020) NC 5 (2004–2026) NH 4 (2011–2025) PA 3 (1982–2008) WA 2 (2013–2016) CT 2 (1995–1999) AZ 2 (1958–2006) OR 2 (1978–2003) RI 2 (1998–2010) MD 2 (2007–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check