22 Pa. D. & C.5th 197
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2011Background
- Civil case involving deposition compelled to disclose source of funds for plaintiffs’ litigation; attorney Wolf faced contempt for asserting attorney-client privilege; South Carolina ALJ issued letters rogatory seeking disclosure; Pennsylvania court affirmed order directing deposition or corporate designee; funds to Protect Blacksburg traced to Wolf & Wolf IOLTA account totaling $26,160.15; South Carolina court deemed information relevant and discoverable; privilege claimed to shield client identity and related communications; court analyzed confidentiality and scope of attorney-client privilege under Pennsylvania law and full faith and credit considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Jan. 13, 2011 order was proper despite privilege claim | Wolf asserts privilege bars disclosure of client identity | Court should compel disclosure to identify source of funds | Yes; order properly compelled disclosure or deposition under privilege limits. |
| Does full faith and credit preclude reexamination of relevancy | Pennsylvania must respect SC finding of relevance | SC finding controls; no reexamination | Yes; full faith and credit required honoring SC determination. |
| Is client identity protected by attorney-client privilege | Identity is confidential communications | Identity alone not confidential; not protected | No; client identity not protected as confidential communication. |
| Scope of confidentiality for communications vs. client identity | Confidential communications include client-to-attorney and certain attorney-to-client info | Only confidential communications related to legal services | Confidential communications scope limited; identity not protected. |
| Four-factor test for privilege applicability | Applies to protect communications for legal services | Must meet four-element test to shield disclosure | The privilege applies only where four elements satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkes ex rel. Mason v. Phoenix Home Life Mutual Ins. Co., 587 Pa. 590, 902 A.2d 366 (Pa. 2006) (full faith and credit; res judicata effect across states)
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1981) (attorney-client privilege extends to confidential communications)
- Beltzhoover v. Blackstock, 3 Watts 20, 1834 WL 3292 (Pa. 1834) (early articulation of privilege foundations)
- In Re Investigating Grand Jury of Philadelphia Co., 527 Pa. 432, 593 A.2d 402 (Pa. 1991) (privilege limited by administration of justice needs)
- Brennan v. Brennan, 422 A.2d 510 (Pa. Super. 1980) (when to disclose under privilege for justice)
- Slusaw v. Hoffman, 861 A.2d 269 (Pa. Super. 2004) (invoices not privileged if no confidential communications)
- Marian Bank v. Lawrence Voluck Associates, Inc., 26 Pa.D. & C.3d 48 (Pa. Common Pleas 1982) (attorney may be examined as to existence of relationship)
- Maulch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 113 F.2d 555 (3d Cir. 1940) (courts may test privilege by identity of client)
- Carbis Walker, LLP v. Hill, Barth and King, LLC, 2007 Pa. Super. 221, 930 A.2d 573 (Pa. Super. 2007) (four-element test for privilege applicability)
- Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Fleming, 924 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2007) (confidential communications required for privilege)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Fowler, 788 A.2d 1053 (Pa. Commw. 2001) (scope of privilege; purpose of legal services)