About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

65 Yale L.J. 953 (1955-1956)
The Attorney-Client Privilege as Applied to Corporations

handle is hein.journals/ylr65 and id is 981 raw text is: THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AS APPLIED TO CORPORATIONS DAVID SIMONt THE lawyer often finds himself at the entrance to a field that lacks markers, paths, or even a solitary footprint to show there were travelers before him. Perhaps the ground has never been crossed, or has long since been abandoned; but more commonly, there have been frequent visitors who left no trace. This last, one suspects, is the case with the subject matter of this analysis. No doubt the attorney-client privilege problems affecting corporations are mapped out in intra-office memos, in the practices of litigators, and in the thinking habits of judges. However, there are only a handful of modem de- cisions dealing directly with some of the difficulties that arise in applying the traditional rules of the privilege to corporations. It is generally assumed that corporations and other legal entities are entitled to the privilege just as much as individuals are. The idea seems to go un- challenged-perhaps because in law, as in life, many of the most deeply be- lieved assumptions are unspoken. Indeed, one can imagine the response of the surprised practitioner to any suggestion that it be otherwise: Why should a corporation not be entitled to the privilege? Cannot a corporation sue and be sued? Is it not punishable for its crimes? Does it not need legal advice of its own? How could it go about getting such advice if its confidences were not respected? It is an ancient rule that a master is privileged to consult with counsel through his servant, a principal through his agent-why not a corporation in the same way ? These arguments certainly sound right as a matter of common law, and a few cases have so intimated.2 Moreover, the American statutes codifying the common law attorney-client privilege generally refer to the client rather than to a person,'3 and perhaps a corporation would fit within th6 former tMember of the New York Bar. 1. Preservation of the privilege for corporate law departments was discussed in concise but illuminating fashion by Lawrence S. Apsey, Esq., at the Practicing Law Institute's llth Annual Summer Session, July, 1952, in New York City. See PLI, COIU'oRATh HOUSE COUNSEL COURSE, LEcTURE OUTLINES AND MATERIALS (1952). 2. Stewart Equipment Co. v. Gallo, 32 N.J. Super. 15, 107 A.2d 527 (L. 1954); Ex parte Schoepf, 74 Ohio St. 1, 77 N.E. 276 (1906) ; Mayor & Corp. of Bristol v. Cox, 26 Ch. D. 678, 682 (1884); cf. United States v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 236 U.S. 318, 336 (1915); Lalance & Grosjean Mfg. Co. v. Haberman Mfg. Co., 87 Fed. 563, 564 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1898); Robertson v. Virginia, 181 Va. 520, 539, 25 S.E.2d 352, 360 (1943). Usually the point is assumed without discussion. E.g., McWilliams v. American Fidelity Co., 140 Conn. 572, 581, 102 A.2d 345, 349 (1954); cf. Consolidated Theatres, Inc. v. Warner Bros. Cir. Management Corp., 216 F.2d 920 (2d Cir. 1954). 3. See the listing of statutes in 8 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE § 2292 (3d ed. 1940) (herein- after cited as WIGMORE). The English Companies Act of 1948 codifies the privilege-

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most