The ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct™ is a trusted resource that helps attorneys understand cases and decisions that directly impacts their work, practice ethically, and...
June 13 — The common interest doctrine won't preserve the attorney-client privilege in New York for confidential communications exchanged among attorneys for separately represented parties if there's no pending or anticipated litigation, the New York Court of Appeals held June 9 ( Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2016 BL 184648, N.Y., No. 80, 6/9/16 , rev'g 998 N.Y.S.2d 329, 30 Law. Man. Prof. Conduct 770).
Normally the attorney-client privilege is lost if protected communications are shared with a third party, but an exception prevents waiver when the senders and recipients share a common legal interest in the subject matter of the communications.
“We hold today, as the courts in New York have held for over two decades, that any such communication must also relate to litigation, either pending or anticipated, in order for the exception to apply,” Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr. wrote for the court.Links
Amicus curiae brief submitted by Association of Corporate Counsel and U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The decision means the common interest doctrine doesn't apply under New York law when parties that have separate counsel in a commercial transaction exchange legal communications outside the context of expected litigation.
This narrow view is at odds with the position of some federal courts and the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers (2000), which allow the common interest doctrine to apply in both litigated and nonlitigated matters.
In Ambac, Judge Pigott acknowledged that the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers §76(1) and some federal courts of appeals have extended the common interest doctrine to communications in furtherance of any common legal interest. He cited cases from the Third, Seventh and Federal circuits.
The Second and Ninth circuits have made clear that actual or ongoing litigation isn't required, but apparently haven't expressly decided whether there must be a threat of litigation to invoke the exception, Pigott said.
Pigott also noted that a Delaware rule extends the attorney-client privilege to confidential communications the client makes to a lawyer “representing another in a matter of public interest.”
However, at least 11 states have statutorily restricted the common interest doctrine to communications made in furtherance of ongoing litigation, Pigott said. He cited rules or laws from Arkansas, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Vermont.
The ruling grew out of a discovery dispute in an insurer's suit against Bank of America Corp. and Countrywide Home Loans Inc. to recover losses on mortgage securities.
The court overturned a lower court decision which held that attorney-client communications the two companies and their lawyers shared with each other when they were preparing to merge may be privileged even though no litigation was on the horizon at that time.
Pigott said the high court saw no need to expand the common interest doctrine, which lower New York courts have long restricted to the context of litigation.
There's no evidence that complex commercial transactions haven't occurred in New York as a result of the litigation restriction, the court said. Nor is there evidence that corporate clients will stop complying with the law unless the common interest doctrine applies in transactional matters, Pigott said.
The court cited the merger at the heart of this case as the perfect example. The companies obtained regulatory approval and filed required disclosures in anticipation of closing their merger even though New York law was clear at the time that their shared communications wouldn't remain privileged unless they anticipated litigation.
“Put simply, when businesses share a common interest in closing a complex transaction, their shared interest in the transaction's completion is already an adequate incentive for exchanging information necessary to achieve that end,” Pigott said.
The court also said expanding the common interest doctrine outside the context of litigation would result in loss of relevant evidence and create the potential for abuse.
The difficulty of defining “common legal interests” outside the context of litigation could shield a wide range of communications between parties who say they have common legal interests but who really only have only nonlegal or purely business interests to protect, the court said.
In a footnote, Pigott said the court didn't need to decide here what it means to share a common legal interest in pending or anticipated litigation.
“We hold only that such litigation must be ongoing or reasonably anticipated, and the exchanged communication must relate to it, in order for the common interest exception to apply,” he wrote.
The court rejected several reasons Bank of America put forward for dropping the litigation requirement. Pigott said that:
Judge Jenny Rivera dissented, joined by Judge Michael J. Garcia.
Rivera argued that the attorney-client privilege should apply to private attorney-client communications exchanged “during the course of a transformative business enterprise in which the parties agree to collaborate and exchange information to obtain legal advice aimed at compliance with transaction related statutory and regulatory mandates.”
Rivera pointed out that the attorney-client privilege itself has no litigation requirement. Clients often seek legal advice specifically to comply with legal and regulatory mandates and to avoid litigation or liability, she said.
Jonathan Rosenberg of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, argued for Bank of America. Stephen P. Younger of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, argued for Ambac Assurance Corp.
To contact the reporter on this story: Joan C. Rogers in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Kirk Swanson at email@example.com
Copyright 2016, the American Bar Association and The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)