Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502 (2026)

Attorney-client privilege

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. As used in this section: 1. An “attorney” is a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized, to engage in the practice of law in any state or nation; 2. A “client” is a person, public officer, or corporation, association, or other organization or entity, either public or private, who consults an attorney with a view towards obtaining legal services or is rendered professional legal services by an attorney; 3. A “representative of an attorney” is one employed by the attorney to assist the attorney in the rendition of professional legal services; 4. A “representative of the client” is: a. one having authority to obtain professional legal services, or to act on advice rendered pursuant thereto, on behalf of the client, or b. any other person who, for the purpose of effectuating legal representation for the client, makes or receives a confidential communication while acting in the scope of employment for the client; and 5. A communication is “confidential” if not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those to whom disclosure is made in furtherance of the rendition of professional legal services to the client or those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication. B. A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client: 1. Between the client or a representative of the client and the client’s attorney or a representative of the attorney; 2. Between the attorney and a representative of the attorney; 3. By the client or a representative of the client or the client’s attorney or a representative of the attorney to an attorney

or a representative of an attorney representing another party in a pending action and concerning a matter of common interest therein; 4. Between representatives of the client or between the client and a representative of the client; or 5. Among attorneys and their representatives representing the same client. C. The privilege may be claimed by the client, the client’s guardian or conservator, the personal representative of a deceased client, or the successor, trustee, or similar representative of a corporation, association, or other organization, whether or not in existence. The person who was the attorney or the attorney’s representative at the time of the communication is presumed to have authority to claim the privilege but only on behalf of the client. D. There is no privilege under this section: 1. If the services of the attorney 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; 2. As to a communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or intestate succession or by inter vivos transaction; 3. As to a communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the attorney to the client or by the client to the attorney; 4. As to a communication necessary for an attorney to defend in a legal proceeding an accusation that the attorney assisted the client in criminal or fraudulent conduct; 5. As to a communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested document to which the attorney is an attesting witness; 6. As to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest between or among two or more clients if the communication was made by any of them to an attorney retained or consulted in common, when offered in an action between or among any of the clients; or 7. As to a communication between a public officer or agency and its attorney unless the communication concerns a pending investigation, claim or action and the court determines that disclosure will seriously impair the ability of the public officer or agency to process the claim or conduct a pending investigation, litigation or proceeding in the public interest. E. A disclosure of a communication or information covered by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine does not operate as a waiver if: 1. The disclosure was inadvertent; 2. The holder of the privilege took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and 3. The holder of the privilege took reasonable steps to rectify the error including, but not limited to, information falling within

the scope of paragraph 4 of subsection B of Section 3226 of this title, if applicable. F. Disclosure of a communication or information meeting the requirements of an attorney-client privilege as set forth in this section or the work-product doctrine to a governmental office, agency or political subdivision in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority does not operate as a waiver of the privilege or protection in favor of nongovernmental persons or entities. Disclosure of such information does not waive the privilege or protection of undisclosed communications on the same subject unless: 1. The waiver is intentional; 2. The disclosed and undisclosed communications or information concern the same subject matter; and 3. Due to principles of fairness, the disclosed and undisclosed communications or information should be considered together. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 502, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 2002, c. 468, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 2002; Laws 2009, c. 251, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2009; Laws 2013, c. 316, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2013.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Lindley v. Life Investors Ins., 267 F.R.D. 382 (N.D. Okla. 2010).
Lindley v. Life Investors Ins., 267 F.R.D. 382 (N.D. Okla. 2010). · cites it 6× “” Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502 (A)(2). 8 It protects not only the client’s confidential communications but also the attorney’s responsive communications that reveal the content of the client’s communications.”
Scott v. Peterson, 2005 OK 84 (Okla. 2005). · cites it 4× “Assuming, but not deciding, that the Perfection-NAICO relationship is an attorney-client relationship for certain purposes, Perfection's blanket assertion of the privilege for the entire claims file is not supported by either facts or authority showing that the communications in…”
Joe L. White, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Am. Airlines, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee, 915 F.2d 1414 (10th Cir. 1990). · cites it 4× “” Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 12, § 2502(B). Oklahoma law further provides, under the so-called “crime-fraud” exception, that the attorney-client privilege does not extend to situations in which “the services of the attorney were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or…”
Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “See 12 O.S.2001, § 2502. Appellant fails to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by counsel's statement to the court.”
Gilson v. State, 2000 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “12 O.S.1991, § 2502. The record indicates the testimony sought from Ms.”
Cooper v. State, 671 P.2d 1168 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “He asserts that the privilege was unavailable under 12 O.S.1981, § 2502(D)(1). 1 This argument assumes that the client, who consulted the attorney in December of 1966, and January of 1967, did so for the purpose of enabling himself or another to commit a crime, or fraud.”
Browning v. State, 2006 OK CR 8 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). “12 O.S.2001, § 2502(C). This Court has held that, where a defendant has other means to defend against the State's accusations and there are no unique circumstances, the constitutional right to present a defense and confront witnesses will not *836 warrant breaking the…”
In Re the Investigation of the Death of Miller, 584 S.E.2d 772 (N.C. 2003). “502(c) (2002); Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502 (C) (2003); Or.”
Van White v. State, 1999 OK CR 10 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “In light of the discussion above, these sub-propositions are likewise without merit.”
In re XL Specialty Ins. Co., 373 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. 2012). “502(b) (same); Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2502(B)(3) (same); S.”
Douglas v. State, 1997 OK CR 79 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “The attorney advised they would talk with the police the following morning.”
Roesler v. TIG Ins. Co., 251 F. App'x 489 (10th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “The attorney-client privilege is codified at Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502 . It protects communications between an attorney and the client “who consults an attorney with a view towards obtaining legal services or is rendered professional legal services by an attorney.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502(A)(2) — 2 cases
Roesler v. TIG Ins. Co., 251 F. App'x 489 (10th Cir. 2007). “The attorney-client privilege is codified at Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502 . It protects communications between an attorney and the client “who consults an attorney with a view towards obtaining legal services or is rendered professional legal services by an attorney.”
City of Kingfisher v. State, 958 P.2d 170 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502(A)(3) — 1 case
Lindley v. Life Investors Ins., 267 F.R.D. 382 (N.D. Okla. 2010). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502 (A)(2). 8 It protects not only the client’s confidential communications but also the attorney’s responsive communications that reveal the content of the client’s communications.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502(A)(4) — 1 case
Naum v. State, 630 P.2d 785 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502(B) — 4 cases
Joe L. White, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Am. Airlines, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee, 915 F.2d 1414 (10th Cir. 1990). “” Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 12, § 2502(B). Oklahoma law further provides, under the so-called “crime-fraud” exception, that the attorney-client privilege does not extend to situations in which “the services of the attorney were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or…”
Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Texaco, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 329 (N.D. Okla. 2002).
Lively v. Washington Cnty. Dist. Court, 747 P.2d 320 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502(B)(1) — 1 case
David A Stewart & Terry P Stewart (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 2021).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502(B)(3) — 1 case
In re XL Specialty Ins. Co., 373 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. 2012). “502(b) (same); Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2502(B)(3) (same); S.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502(B)(4) — 1 case
Naum v. State, 630 P.2d 785 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502(C) — 2 cases
Browning v. State, 2006 OK CR 8 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). “12 O.S.2001, § 2502(C). This Court has held that, where a defendant has other means to defend against the State's accusations and there are no unique circumstances, the constitutional right to present a defense and confront witnesses will not *836 warrant breaking the…”
Cooper v. State, 661 P.2d 905 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502(D) — 2 cases
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502(D)(1) — 3 cases
Joe L. White, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Am. Airlines, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee, 915 F.2d 1414 (10th Cir. 1990). “” Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 12, § 2502(B). Oklahoma law further provides, under the so-called “crime-fraud” exception, that the attorney-client privilege does not extend to situations in which “the services of the attorney were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or…”
Cooper v. State, 671 P.2d 1168 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). “He asserts that the privilege was unavailable under 12 O.S.1981, § 2502(D)(1). 1 This argument assumes that the client, who consulted the attorney in December of 1966, and January of 1967, did so for the purpose of enabling himself or another to commit a crime, or fraud.”
Gilson v. State, 2000 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000). “12 O.S.1991, § 2502. The record indicates the testimony sought from Ms.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502(D)(3) — 1 case
Owens v. Owens, 2023 OK 12 (Okla. 2023).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502(D)(6) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.