February 8, 2012

In-House Counsel Must Maintain Active Bar Membership to Preserve Attorney Client Privilege

Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held in a discovery order that the attorney-client privilege does not apply to communications between a client-corporation and its in-house attorney when the in-house attorney was an inactive member of his state bar. In that case, Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65871, Case No. 09-CV-04373 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2010), United States Magistrate Judge Cott held that an inactive attorney is not an “attorney” for purposes of attorney-client privilege, and therefore the attorney-client privilege did not apply to communications between that attorney and his client-company. The court held that the attorney-client privilege could still apply if the client reasonably believed that the attorney was authorized to practice law; however, the court held that the privilege did not apply here because the client-company did not make a reasonable effort to ascertain the attorney’s qualifications and status.

This case is significant for companies that employ in-house counsel. In order to maximize the protection afforded by the attorney-client privilege, in-house counsel must maintain their active bar status to avoid any argument that the privilege should not apply to the in-house counsel. Prior to hiring an attorney as in-house counsel, a company should conduct a background check into the attorney’s qualifications as an attorney and the attorney’s state bar membership status. A company that already employs in-house counsel should establish a procedure to verify annually that their in-house attorneys’ bar status is active. The company should also require in-house counsel to immediately disclose to the company if their state bar membership expires.

Most state bar websites provide a way to quickly verify whether an attorney is an active member of the state bar. For example, a Wisconsin attorney’s license can be verified here. An Illinois attorney’s license can be verified here.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

Partner

Ed Sarskas is a Co-Chair of the firm’s Class Action/ MDL Team and a partner in the firm’s Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Groups. Mr. Sarskas has significant experience handling complex commercial litigation concerning intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks and copyrights, as well as unfair competition, advertising, trade secrets, and related contract disputes. Mr. Sarskas also has experience handling securities and corporate governance litigation in individual and class actions, including in In re Enron Securities Litigation...

414-223-2521

About the Author

Associate

Adam Witkov is a member of the Litigation Practice Group in the Milwaukee office. Mr. Witkov has an active general commercial litigation practice with experience in both state and federal court concerning a broad range of matters including commercial torts, contract disputes, trade secrets, products liability, and insurance. 

414.225.8292

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.