Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

litigationattorneylawyerstatuteappealtrialworkers' compensationexpert witnessbad faithattorney-client privilege
litigationattorneylawyerdiscoveryappealtrialwillrespondentattorney-client privilege

Related Cases

In re Witness Before Special Grand Jury 2000-2, 288 F.3d 289, 58 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1142
View Case »
Koen Book Distributors, Inc. v. Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrle, Bowman & Lombardo, P.C., 212 F.R.D. 283
View Case »
Gregori v. Bank of America, 207 Cal.App.3d 291, 254 Cal.Rptr. 853, 57 USLW 2481
View Case »
In re Harris, 5 Cal.4th 813, 855 P.2d 391, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373
View Case »
In re Marriage of Smith, 225 Cal.App.3d 469, 274 Cal.Rptr. 911, 59 USLW 2388
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

State Compensation Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc., 70 Cal.App.4th 644, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 799, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1695, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2149

Facts

The State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) brought an action against WPS, Inc. for underpayment of workers' compensation insurance premiums. During the litigation, State Fund inadvertently sent privileged attorney-client communications to WPS's attorneys, who then shared some of these documents with an expert witness. When State Fund discovered the error, it requested the return of the documents, but WPS's counsel refused. The trial court found this refusal to be in bad faith and imposed sanctions against WPS and its attorneys.

Adam Telanoff, counsel for WPS, Inc., received copies of State Compensation Insurance Fund's (“State Fund”) internal documents containing privileged attorney-client communications because State Fund's outside lawyers inadvertently sent them along with other documents produced for use at trial.

Issue

What is the ethical duty of a lawyer who receives privileged documents through the inadvertence of opposing counsel, and whether the attorneys' conduct warranted sanctions?

The primary question presented by this appeal is what is a lawyer to do when he or she receives through the inadvertence of opposing counsel documents plainly subject to the attorney-client privilege?

Rule

Whenever a lawyer ascertains that he or she may have privileged attorney-client material that was inadvertently provided by another, that lawyer must notify the party entitled to the privilege of that fact.

However, because it is probable that similar circumstances will reoccur in the ebb and flow of discovery and litigation matters, this opinion provides a standard for future application by lawyers confronted with a predicament comparable to the one presented here.

Analysis

The court analyzed the circumstances surrounding the inadvertent disclosure of the privileged documents and determined that the attorneys for WPS did not act in bad faith. The court noted that there was no clear California law governing the obligation of attorneys in such situations, and thus the attorneys' actions could not be deemed a violation of any established rule or statute. The court emphasized the importance of the attorney-client privilege and the need for a standard to guide attorneys in similar situations in the future.

The trial court found that the claim summary forms contained privileged information which respondent was not obligated to disclose and which could remain confidential.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order imposing sanctions, concluding that the attorneys' conduct did not warrant such penalties under the existing legal framework.

The order imposing sanctions against Adam Telanoff, Ronald Telanoff, Telanoff & Telanoff, and WPS, Inc. is reversed.

Who won?

WPS, Inc. and its attorneys prevailed in the appeal because the court found that their conduct was not clearly prohibited by any law or ethical rule.

The court further found that “counsel for WPS, Inc. failed and refused to return the above-referenced documents to State Fund in violation of counsel's ethical obligations and in violation of ABA Formal Opinion 92–368.”

You must be