New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Attorney-Client Privilege — At Issue Waiver

Download PDF

A three-part test is generally used to determine whether a party has waived the attorney-client privilege by placing privileged communications ‛at issue.“ An implied waiver occurs when (1) the party asserts the privilege as a result of some affirmative act, such as filing suit; (2) through this affirmative act, the asserting party puts the privileged information at issue; and (3) allowing the privilege would deny the opposing party access to information vital to its defense. Two decisions rendered last week illustrate at-issue waiver in context.

The plaintiff bank in 1st Security Bank v. Eriksen, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4449 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 22, 2007) had hired the defendant lawyer and law firm to draft a SERP (benefits plan) for the bank’s CEO. After the CEO resigned, he sued the bank for SERP benefits, and the bank ultimately settled. The bank then filed this legal malpractice suit against the defendants for negligence in drafting an ambiguous SERP. The defendants subpoenaed the law firm that represented the bank in the litigation with the CEO, claiming that the bank had placed that firm’s advice at issue by filing this suit (and, inter alia, taking a different position as to the ambiguity of the SERP). Stressing that ‛[m]ere relevance to defendant's case is not sufficient,“ the court found the three-part test unsatisfied and no at-issue waiver.

In contrast, consider Scifres v. Ford Motor Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5212 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 24, 2007), a wrongful death action brought by a surviving husband following an accident that that claimed the life of his wife and child. But this was a wrongful death action with a twist. The plaintiff husband had filed an uncontested divorce proceeding against his deceased wife before the accident, but had also instructed his divorce lawyer to withdraw the action before the accident. The defendants sought all communications between the plaintiff and his divorce lawyer. The court found the three-part test was satisfied and held that plaintiff’s communications with his divorce lawyer ‛regarding the state of his marriage and his intentions regarding getting a divorce are at issue in this case in relation to plaintiff’s loss of consortium claim.“

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Extrinsic Fraud Exception to Rooker-Feldman — Where Defendants’ Perjury, False Evidence, Flawed Legal Arguments Prevented Plaintiffs from Presenting Their Claim in State Court

Federal Jurisdiction: Party Can Waive Subject Matter Jurisdiction — While Federal Courts Must Ensure They Do Not Lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction, There Is No Duty to Find and Exercise It

“RICO Is a Judge’s Nightmare” — “The Requisite RICO Pleading Standards Are Far From Explicit, And The RICO Jurisprudence Offers Courts (And Plaintiffs) Little Guidance” (Good Quotes) — Common Elements of § 1962(a), (c) and (d)-Based Claims — Closed-End Continuity: Duration > 1 Year = Substantial Period of Time — Continuity: Courts Skeptical If Number of Victims and Schemes Is Limited — Untargeted Persons Who Suffer Derivative Injury Do Not Add to the Number of Victims Considered for Continuity Purposes — Open Ended Continuity Can Be Established by Showing Defendant Commits Predicate Acts As “Regular Way of Doing Business” — Citing the Existence of Other Lawsuits Alleging Similar Predicates ≠ Pleading Facts Demonstrating Defendant’s Commission of Similar Predicates Against Others

Practice of Seeking Leave to Amend after The Case Is Dismissed Is Discouraged

RICO: Release Executed After Alleged RICO Violations Extinguishes RICO Claim — Eighth Circuit Declines to Address Enforceability of A Release “That Is An Integral Part of An Alleged RICO Scheme Or That Immunizes Future RICO Conduct

Pleading — “Civil pleadings are supposed to mark the boundaries for discovery; discovery is not supposed to substitute for definite pleading” (Good Quote) — Shotgun Pleadings (11th Circuit):  Four Categories/Types

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report: Failure to Argue Harmlessness Essentially Waives Issue

Rule 37(b) Sanctions — Exclusion of Supplemental Expert Report for Advancing New Opinions — Third Circuit Exclusion Factors — “Importance of Excluded Evidence:” If, As Proponent Argues, There Is Nothing New, Then Exclusion Doesn’t Harm Proponent; If There Is, It Harms Opponent

RICO Pleading: Generic Allegations of Fraud (Failing Even to Set Forth Any False Representation) And Extortion (Failing to Describe Actual Threats) Too Conclusory to State a Claim

RICO Standing: Antitrust’s Indirect Purchaser Rule Applies in RICO Cases, Barring Claims by Indirect Purchasers Two Or More Steps Removed From The Violator In A Distribution Chain (Here, Truck Purchasers/Lessees Suing Manufacturer), Though Court Considers Bar “Unsupported by Sensible Principles”

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice