*1 that Knoll had act no real or for. authority, apparent, Seefeldt under the transaction as conditions changed Knoll Turck and carried it out. Under circumstances the risk of loss of the made Knoll Turck must payment borne appellant. . . affirmed.
By Judgment Court.— Guardian, Appellant, Tomek, vs. Farmers Mutual Company Re- Automobile Insurance spondents. 8, 1955.
January February
VO *3 there briefs Arthur For were appellant by DeBardele- сounsel, hen, T. Rothrock of both of Cecil Park attorney, Falls, oral Mr. DeBardeleben. by argument there was brief and oral by
For the respondents argument M. Anich Thomas of Ashland. The statutes as follows: apрlicable
Gehl, J. to ATTORNEYS. An attorney “325.22 Communications a com- at not be to disclose or counselor law shall allowed him, client to or his advice given his munication This in the course of his professional еmployment. thereon client, and does include waived may prohibition for his needs to divulge which the communications with whom he or of those the protection own protection, him for the deals, purpose were made to express or another, or made public.” being communicated being Discovery trials. before examination (1) “326.12 of a The adverse examination party, thereto. subject Persons benefit civil action any immediate whose or any defended, its or his or or assignor, prosecuted or proceeding
569 officer, agent, of the employee, who was officer, аt the agent, employee time of the occurrence made examination, subject be taken by deposition at the instance of adverse any oral or party written in interrogatories сivil action or at time proceeding thereof, before final determination but the shall deponent to disclose compelled not relevant anything to the con- . . troversy. least, desires in
Obviously рlaintiff at part, discovery facts within the knowledge attorneys were not communicated client, them their directly although they became with such facts acquainted while en- professionally as gaged the client. attorneys
The involves the controversy interpretation Stats. The is narrow. provision simply precludes at- from torney communication disclosing “made his client to him.” He is not its precluded by рrovisions from testify- as to transactions ing had with or communications made to him third those persons though matters came to his in his retainer consequence attorney. counsel in Herman
Apparently sought v. Schlesinger, Wis. 90 N. W. application the common-law rule Beck, which was stated v. Dudley *274, *284, Wis. follows:
“We think the cases in this country and England, taken establish the doctrine that an together, attorney cannot be disсlose, at the instance of a compelled matter which came to his third person, any
knowledge, consequence *4 such employment, though business had no reference to or legal proceedings begun, apprehеnded.” In answer to counsel’s contention made in Herman v. the Schlesinger, supra, court said : (p. 393) “It was claimed on the trial that the statutory privilege of includes all secrecy communications made to the attorney reason of his by professional whether employment, his by client or third while he is in by persons of pursuit his client’s
570 business, him, also to all obtained whether' and by otherwise, from his of the latter’s client or while pursuit business; ruled, court so of excluding and the evidence negoti- for the and ations conducted defendant his wife with third a to of to matter material the issues the persons case. respect the of the statute does not Manifestly, language justify made to an Communications ruling. attorney by while the with such attorney dealing person coun- and and agent attorney, attorney agent, merely, selor, of аre in no communications made sense by of a confidential character or attorney, the latter to such statute, the letter nor the the nor otherwise. Neither of spirit made under it or similar statutе the any decision law, the statute is merely declaratory, common of which goes Somers, extent, far as we advised. In v. to that so Koeber court, 991, 497, N. this 84 W. Mr. speaking by 108 Wis. between held the secrecy privilеge Dodge, Justice attorney to those communications client, statute, extends by only to the former latter character and for the are of a confidential pur- which client, his to serve attorney legal pose enabling communications; client in to such response advice given forth to a service for attorney goes perform that when the client, between such with a third communicаtions person, are not within the and the privilege third secrecy.” declared the stat reconcile principle
It is difficult to the court with the common-law rule of ute and accepted re-еnactment, has been to be but mere the statute said Somers, Koeber v. supra; Wis. Schlesinger, Herman v. 581, 991; Downing, N. Will 118 Wis. 84 W. us to extend statute does permit N. W. but the limits thereon beyond placed benefit the privilege and unambiguous language. plain for- hold, therefore, case are that the this attorneys We communications made defend- only disclose bidden however, that an That is to say, ants to them. information disclosе all or compelled *5 has him come to otherwise than direct route from his client. The information must be such is sought available examination, under the upon provisions Stats., and the rules. information aрplicable Certainly, with- in the client and to which knowledge his adversary entitled, is not not is made available to the latter the mere fact that it is also within the
has come to the means of a communiсation attorney by to him a third person. desirable, if would be possible practicable,
indicate in this what information the opinion attorneys should disclose. is not Since it permitted bit of informa- every tion has which be divulged by witness, it him as a follows that necessarily whether the in- formation he has is must privileged depend upon nature of the demand and the adversary circumstances of the case. the demand for Until information is made and of the information nature precise sought disclosed it is court, whom the impossible upon law has cast the duty deciding question, determine whether there should disclosure. true with
The sаme is to the respect demand made in the case, in the instant subpoena attorneys produce books, records, documents, must, certain etc. There course, be with the compliancе subpoena and the papers the hearing. Whether their upon contents producéd or in- them formation disclosed to the attorneys should be made adversary known to the will in each depend case nature or character particular document to be sought to which used and the extent its use is sought. not be misunderstood as
We should that there declaring to the rule are no that an exceptions attorney may disclose communication client directly to him. The certain statute itself exceptions. provides This court has statute, not contained in exceptions such for instance, an attorney as the a client seeks advice of case where *6 before, of a crime in and the commission connection with commission; in for the of its and purpose being.guided in the he seеks advice that will serve him perpetration where as of a fraud. These are exceptions being required do here in interests and We justice. the of public policy of been to recite аll the which have exceptions pretend but refer to them to demonstrate some of only recognized, and to avoid misunder- there such exceptions, that of our standing opinion. follows, therefоre, in the court erred that suppressing to the were entitled no more
the defendants examinations them. than orders limiting the Court.—Orders reversed.
By Stats., 326.12, only Sec. per- {concurring). CuRRiE, J. an of mits the of the adverse taking person deposition such in situations where of before trial agent party sub- time the occurrence the “at the was agent Estate Briese In in the examination." ject opinion Mr. 238 Wis. N. W. (1941), Wick- Justice out that this retained prevents attorney hem points trial examined before being adversely litigation purposes the before his retainer. In to occurrences taking place case, “mine run” automobile accident this would ordinary the examination of adverse taking preclude same after the accident the investigate pre- employed trial, the because investigation subsequent pare possible not be to the issues accident relevant ordinarily the would the pleadings. raised by case, however, instant the
In the investigation examined is relevant to attorneys sought adversely made the raised pleadings, they having original issues in behalf of the defendant Insurance investigation Company. Stats., 204.34 failure to (3), provides give timely Sec. not bar under the the in- liability notice shall unless poliсy was burden to damaged thereby, surer prejudiced establish lack of damage being prejudice Therefore, claiming liability. testimony attorneys, in the accident behalf investigated who de- originally whether the fendant Insurance as to Company, delay giv- hindered them their notice ing way investigation efforts, be relevant on the issue would raised policy failure of the insured to which alleged defense give timely accident. notice of the this reason it was error to
For suppress ad- attempted examinations. Protection to the verse witnesses to disclose being compelled privileged cоmmunications against Stats., in violation afforded secur- *7 examinations, order limiting ing proper scope objections during course of the interposing proper the disclosure questions calling of privi- examinations matter. leged Transport
Milwaukee & Suburban Corporation, Ap vs. Public Service Commission, pellant, Respondent: City of Milwaukee Intervenors.* 8, 1955.
January February * denied, rehearing costs, Motion without April 5, on 1955.