The attorney-client privilege issue came about when Ohio-based Nationwide was litigating a case in Pennsylvania court. The case itself was brought about by Nationwide, which alleged that some of the company's former agents disclosed classified information about policyholders to competitors. The defendants countersued, claiming that the insurance company acted in bad faith and that it intentionally attempted to put the agents out of business. During the course of this initial bench trial, an internal memo, Nationwide's "reflex action plan," was discussed during testimony. At the time, Butler County Common Pleas Judge S. Michael Yeager ruled that any privilege related to Nationwide's reflex action plan document had thus been waived by the company and that the document could be discovered. Nationwide subsequently appealed the ruling, arguing that the document was in fact privileged since it was sent to the company's executives from the general counsel. Yeager's decision, however, was upheld by the Superior Court. Having been appealed for a second time, the issue has now been put before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fleming. Nationwide's primary argument for privilege is grounded in a 1900 decision. In National Bank of West Grove v. Earle, the court asserted that the advice an attorney gives to a client is privileged, saying, "If it were not, then a man about to become involved in complicated business affairs, whereby he would incur grave responsibilities, should run away from a lawyer rather than consult him." Robert O. Lampl, the attorney for the plaintiff, countered that argument, saying that since the Earle decision, the topic of attorney-client privilege, and its parameters, has been discussed extensively within the courts. Moreover, he argued that the decision does not apply to the situation at hand because it is not directly tied to privilege. "I think you can discard Earle as dicta," Lampl said. "I don't think it provides a true analysis." During the course of oral arguments, Burt Rublin, Nationwide's representative, averred that "allowing discovery of communication from attorneys to clients would have a profound chilling effect on that principle of justice." Furthermore, he maintained that it should not and could not be assumed that Nationwide waived privilege to the document simply because comparable documents had been discussed and submitted into evidence.

Rate This Article 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Select    View top rated articles

On The Net Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. Pennsylvania Supreme Court    Printable Version    PDF Version    Email to a Friend    Post A Comment    View Comment    Discuss

	Popular Tags
	Pennsylvania Supreme Court  applications  attorneys  Superior Court  Pennsylvania  general counsel  Ohio  second time  attorney-client privilege

Featured Testimonials

LawCrossing is very comprehensive and has largest number of job listing as compared to any other site. Tasha

Facts

LawCrossing Fact #6: LawCrossing’s database of job-seeking resources is always growing, ensuring that our selection will be greater each week.

"We want to hear your thoughts. Please comment on this article (below)!" Comments

Article ID: 4111     Article Title: Pennsylvania Court to Determine Breadth of Attorney-Client Privilege Comment not found for this article. Comment

Facebook comments:

Enjoyed reading this article? Click here to sign up for News Wire, our weekly newsletter, and you'll receive articles just like this right in your inbox.

Enter your email address and start getting breaking law firm and legal news right now! Every Alert Alert once a day