Court Finds That a Deposition Preparation Session With a Former Employee Does Not Deserve Privilege Protection
May 30, 2002
Most courts hold that conversations between a company’s lawyers and one of the company’s former employees are protected by the attorney-client privilege as long as the conversations focus on the former employee’s role at the company.
A recent Southern District of New York case adopted the minority view, finding that a deposition preparation session with a company’s former employee did not deserve privilege protection because “there is no showing that [the lawyers were] employed in investigatory actions during the conversations.” City of New York v. Coastal Oil New York, Inc., No. 96 Civ. 8667 (RPP), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1010, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2000).
Lawyers representing companies should know the applicable law in their jurisdictions so that they can maximize the chances that such conversations will be protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. Among other things, a letter clarifying the purpose of the conversation might be persuasive when a court analyzes the possible privilege protection.
Court Finds That a Deposition Preparation Session With a Former Employee Does Not Deserve Privilege Protection
June 14, 2000
Most courts hold that conversations between a company’s lawyers and one of the company’s former employees are protected by the attorney-client privilege as long as the conversations focus on the former employee’s role at the company.
A recent Southern District of New York case adopted the minority view, finding that a deposition preparation session with a company’s former employee did not deserve privilege protection because “there is no showing that [the lawyer’s were] employed in investigatory actions during the conversations.” City of New York v. Coastal Oil New York, Inc., No. 96 Civ. 8667 (RPP), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1010, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2000).
Lawyers representing companies should know the applicable law in their jurisdictions so that they can maximize the chances that such conversations will be protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. Among other things, a letter clarifying the purpose of the conversation might be persuasive when a court analyzes the possible privilege protection.
