Intra Law Firm Communications Regarding Questionable Attorney Conduct.

Authors

Evan King
Jeffrey A. Parness

First Page

2

Date Created

1-1-2014

Publisher

St. Mary's University School of Law

Editor

Clement J. Hayes

Last Page

49

Abstract

When questions are raised regarding a law firm attorney's representation of a firm client, the questioned attorney often wishes to seek legal counsel. A conferral will often benefit the attorney, the firm, and the client. Conferences regarding questioned conduct should be encouraged, not discouraged. To encourage these beneficial conferrals, a broad attorney-client communication privilege and a broad work-product protection (or privilege) should be available. Availability should not be dependent upon whether in-house, outside, or other legal counsel is employed. While earlier federal precedents were split regarding the availability of the attorney-client communication privilege in the in-house counsel setting, increasingly therein the privilege is recognized by state high courts. In addition, work-product protections should often be available to legal counsel advising questioned attorneys. Because of current federal-state and interstate differences in the two immunities from compelled involuntary disclosure, conferring legal counsel and questioned attorneys must proceed cautiously.

Recommended Citation

Evan King & Jeffrey A. Parness, Intra Law Firm Communications Regarding Questionable Attorney Conduct., 5 St. Mary's J. on Legal Malpractice & Ethics 2 (2014).
Available at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/lmej/vol5/iss1/1