EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; SHAHROKH MIRESKANDARI, Real Party in Interest., 231 Cal. App. 4th 1214

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-In a case in which the question before the appellate court was whether the attorney-client privilege under Evid. Code, § 950 et seq., applies to intrafirm communications between attorneys concerning disputes with a current client, when that client later sues the firm for malpractice, the appellate court concluded that when an attorney representing a current client seeks legal advice from an in-house attorney concerning a dispute with the client, the privilege may apply to their confidential communications; [2]-The "fiduciary" and "current client" exceptions to the attorney-client privilege are not recognized under California law; [3]-As a matter of law, petitioners failed to establish preliminary facts showing an attorney-client relationship existed between a Chicago partner and one of the attorneys who was sued.