1107

 

1) The professor is not the holder of the privilege and may not assert it. The university is the holder, and only a university representative (senior management -- usually the VP for legal affairs/general counsel) could assert it.

2) No foundation has been laid that he was consulting the lawyer in her role as lawyer (privileged) rather than vice-president (not privileged).

3) No foundation that the university (acting through its president, provost, and dean) intended the conversation to be privileged. The professor’s intent doesn’t matter.

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 1107.

The scope of the corporate attorney-client privilege is important, and a common area of bar exam questions. Here are some other hypotheticals:

If a corporation hired outside counsel to conduct an investigation of potential environmental law problems (called an environmental audit), and in the process interviewed employees who revealed information suggesting that there was illegal dumping going on, are those communications privileged?

When you know the answer, click here .