Upjohn In Washington: Does The Attorney-Client Privilege Protect Communications Between Government Counsel And Lower-Level Government Employees?
PART 2 In an earlier post, I explained that in Washington the attorney-client privilege held by corporations protects communications between corporate counsel and lower-level corporate employees, with some exceptions. Does this also rule protect communications between counsel for government agencies and lower-level government employees? Although there does not appear to be a published Washington case on point, the answer is very likely yes. Washington law is clear that the attorney-client privilege, codified at RCW 5.60.060(2), protects communications between the legal advisors ...
Communications between Counsel and Lower-Level Employees: Upjohn in Washington
PART 1 In Upjohn Co. v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that the attorney-client privilege protected communications between counsel for Upjohn – who were investigating possible illegal activities by the company – and lower-level company employees.[1] The Supreme Court rejected the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ holding that under the so-called “control group” test, the privilege only covered communications between counsel and “officers and agents … responsible for directing Upjohn’s actions in response to legal advice.”
Beyond the Bounds of Decency?
On October 21, 2014, the Washington Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case brought against Backpage.com and its affiliates by three underage sex trafficking victims who alleged that hundreds of sex trafficking customers were directed to them via Backpage’s website. Savitt Bruce & Willey served as Washington counsel for amici the National Crime Victim Law Institute, Shared Hope International, Covenant House, and Human Rights Project for Girls.[1] The question for the Supreme Court was whether the Backpage defendants ...
Washington Supreme Court Affirms Expansion of “Joint-Employer” Liability Under Wage-and-Hour Laws
Last September, the Washington Court of Appeals held that the “economic reality” test is the proper method to determine whether an entity is a joint employer for purposes of imposing liability under Washington’s Minimum Wage Act (“MWA”).[1] The Washington Supreme Court has now affirmed. An earlier blog post about the Court of Appeals decision, Becerra v. Expert Janitorial, is available here. Becerra involved allegations by a group of janitors that they were underpaid in violation of the ...
