Search Site
Menu
New Jersey Appellate Division Holds Communication Sent to General Counsel Does not Waive Attorney-Client Privilege

In a precedential case, the New Jersey Appellate Division held that an email sent by an employee of a corporation to the corporation’s general counsel was inadmissible under the attorney-client privilege and that such privilege was not subsequently waived when the employee later disclosed the email to a third party.

The case involved the alleged illegal compensation of the Kean University women’s basketball team. The head coach at the time of the incident emailed the University’s general counsel a draft letter involving potential donors for sponsorship of the team for review. The coach later disclosed this email to the NCAA during its investigation into the matter. The University did not object to the disclosure at the time the email was released. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff claimed that the email was not privileged, while the defendants, including the University, maintained that it was. The trial court held that the defendants failed to prove that the purpose of the email was for legal advice and was therefore not privileged and admissible. The court held further that, even if the email was privileged, the disclosure of the email to the NCAA constituted a waiver of that privilege.

Reversing the trial court, the Appellate Division determined that the coach’s email to the University’s general counsel was protected under the attorney-client privilege because it was sent for the purpose of legal advice. The court found that it was in normal business practice to send official documents to the general counsel in order to ensure that the documents conformed to the law and that there was no other logical reason for sending the letter to the general counsel but to obtain legal advice. Additionally, the court held that the privilege was not waived because the coach copied other employees of the University on the email, since the other employees had a shared interest in the University’s liability. Circulation within the pertinent group does not waive the attorney-client privilege. Furthermore, the court found that the privilege was not waived when the coach disclosed the email to the NCAA because the University, not the coach, was the client with the ability to waive the privilege. As a corporation, the general counsel represents the entity, not each individual employee, therefore only the officer or directors of the University have the right to waive the attorney-client privilege. Even though the University did not object to the disclosure at the time it occurred, it did not authorize the coach to make such a disclosure because he was not acting as an agent of the University.

Finally, the court held that the email should not be admitted due to “relevance and materiality” because such allowance is limited to when constitutional rights are threatened, which is not the case in this matter. As a result, the Court of Appeals found that the email was privileged and could not be discovered by the Plaintiff.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Our Attorneys
What clients are saying about us
  • "I highly recommend this law firm because they were responsive and sensitive to my needs and won. I chose this firm after having talked to 6 other firms because within minutes of contacting them I was able to speak to Mr. Lieberman himself. Mr. Lieberman and the junior attorneys did not make me feel small just because I am an individual, a mother, and not a big corporation. My phone calls & emails were returned promptly. They listened to exactly what I wanted & delivered. The defendant was nasty and ignored us and at times I felt like this was going nowhere. The attorneys worked well to reach a settlement that exceeded my expectations. Mr. Lieberman is a very seasoned lawyer who has compassion for his clients. The best thing about Mr. Lieberman is that he trains his staff to have that same level of compassion and respect for clients. " - Z.B., Jersey City, NJ

  • "I would like to personally thank Lieberman & Blecher for their help and advice to my family in dealing with an environmental cleanup issue. When it is a big company and their legal team against a small property owner, I have learned that you need an expert to protect your property and your rights. The team at Lieberman & Blecher did this for my family in a professional and cost effective manner. I would certainly recommend this firm to anyone in need of legal assistance" - C.K., Woodbridge, NJ

Recent Twitter Posts

  • Smothered by Smog, Polish Cities Rank Among Europe's Dirtiest. https://t.co/qmPLWJFFcK
    3 months ago
  • Air pollution in New Jersey is among the worst in the nation. https://t.co/Z7Mjbk80yb
    3 months ago
  • Here are the Places that Struggle to Meet the Rules on Safe Drinking Water. https://t.co/0T2JbvpuQD
    5 months ago
  • Calls for State Probe into Radium in Drinking Water. https://t.co/GT1OIU14C9
    5 months ago
Contact The Toxic Injury Lawyers

Quick Contact Form