231 Cal. App. 4th 1214
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Mireskandari hired Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP (the Firm) to sue Daily Mail in 2012; Shelton led the matter.
- June 2012 communications from Mireskandari criticized the Firm’s billing and demanded written communications; he remained reliant on Firm’s advice.
- June–August 2012: Firm sought in-house advice from Edwards Wildman Swope (General Counsel) and Christman (Claims Counsel) about client disputes and billing; Durbin later advised Shelton and supervised pleadings.
- November 2013 deposition sought production of documents; Shelton asserted the attorney-client privilege and the firm produced many documents but kept others on privilege logs.
- August 2013: Mireskandari filed a malpractice, fiduciary duty, and contract claim against the Firm and Shelton in Los Angeles Superior Court; Greenberg Glusker later assisted in the Daily Mail opposition.
- Petitioners (the Firm and Shelton) sought mandamus to overturn the trial court’s discovery order; the court granted in part and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fiduciary/current client exceptions apply to intrafirm communications. | Mireskandari argues these intrafirm chats are not privileged. | The Firm argues the privilege applies to in-house advice within the same firm. | No fiduciary/current client exception; privilege preserved. |
| Whether an attorney-client relationship existed between Shelton and in-house counsel Swope/Christman. | Mireskandari contends no genuine attorney-client relation existed between Shelton and in-house counsel. | Declarations show Shelton treated Swope/Christman as advising her in the firm context. | Material issue of fact; trial court’s ruling on Durbin limited; remand on relationship question. |
| Whether Sections 958 and 962 apply to bar disclosure in this context. | Mireskandari relies on 958/962 to compel disclosure. | 958/962 do not apply to these intrafirm communications. | Sections 958 and 962 do not apply; privilege remains with eligible communications. |
| Whether California may recognize an implied exception to the attorney-client privilege. | Mireskandari cites fiduciary/current client theories. | California law does not recognize implied exceptions to the privilege. | California law does not recognize fiduciary/current client exceptions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.4th 201 (Cal. 2000) (trustee reporting duties do not trump privilege)
- Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.4th 725 (Cal. 2009) (privilege is broad but not absolute; assessment of exceptions)
- Kerner v. Superior Court, 206 Cal.App.4th 84 (Cal. App. 2012) (attorney-client relationship within firm; confidentiality governs)
- Roberts v. City of Palmdale, 5 Cal.4th 363 (Cal. 1993) (scope and purpose of attorney-client privilege)
- Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court, 217 Cal.App.4th 889 (Cal. App. 2013) (statutory privilege limits and court interpretation)
- Elijah W. v. Superior Court, 216 Cal.App.4th 140 (Cal. App. 2013) (limits on implied exceptions to privilege)
- HLC Properties, Ltd. v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.4th 54 (Cal. 2005) (courts cannot expand privileges beyond statute)