Communications Seeking Legal Advice Through Third-Parties Privileged

On June 18, 2019, the First Department issued a decision in Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v. Kramer, 2019 NY Slip Op. 04896, holding that communications seeking legal advice made through third parties nonetheless were privileged, explaining:

Nonparty respondents were seeking legal advice through third parties and had a reasonable expectation that their communications would remain confidential, as the communications set forth specific legal questions. That neither nonparty respondent had a retainer agreement is of no moment because, so long as the communications are for the purpose of rendering legal advice, the privilege applies even in the absence of a retainer agreement.

(Internal citations omitted).

An issue that arises in almost all complex commercial litigation is identifying evidence that should be withheld from production in evidence because it is subject to the attorney-client or other privilege. Contact Schlam Stone & Dolan partner John Lundin at jlundin@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions regarding the attorney-client, common interest, work product or other privileges or exemptions from production of evidence.