American National Watermattress Corp. v. Manville
1982 Alas. LEXIS 398, 642 P.2d 1330 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications made by a prospective client to an attorney's non-lawyer employee for the purpose of obtaining legal services, even if the communication occurs before the attorney has formally accepted the case and consists solely of factual information.
Facts:
- Florence Manville purchased a waterbed manufactured by American National Watermattress Corporation (ANWC) from a retail dealer, Jack Pendley.
- The waterbed rolled off its pedestal, pinning Manville underneath and causing her severe injuries.
- A few days after the accident, Manville contacted a law firm for legal advice.
- Because the firm's attorneys were unavailable, they sent a full-time, non-lawyer employee, Chuck Ward, to interview Manville in her hospital room.
- The purpose of the interview was to gather information so the firm could provide legal advice and decide whether to offer legal assistance.
- During the interview, Ward tape-recorded a portion of his conversation with Manville about the facts of the accident.
- The law firm subsequently accepted Manville's case.
Procedural Posture:
- Florence Manville filed a lawsuit in trial court against American National Watermattress Corporation (ANWC) and Jack Pendley.
- Before trial, Manville settled her claim against Pendley.
- During pre-trial discovery, ANWC learned of the recorded statement Manville gave to her attorneys' employee and requested its production.
- Manville refused to produce the statement, asserting the attorney-client privilege.
- ANWC filed a motion in the trial court to compel production of the statement.
- The trial court denied ANWC's motion to compel, ruling that the statement was privileged.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial against ANWC, which resulted in a verdict for Manville.
- ANWC, as appellant, appealed the final judgment to the Supreme Court of Alaska, challenging the trial court's denial of its motion to compel, among other rulings. Manville, as cross-appellant, appealed the method of calculating the final judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the attorney-client privilege protect from discovery a statement of facts made by an injured person to a law firm's non-lawyer employee during a preliminary interview conducted to determine whether the firm would provide legal assistance?
Opinions:
Majority - Burke, Justice
Yes, the attorney-client privilege protects the statement from discovery. The court reasoned that the privilege is intended to promote freedom of consultation with legal advisors and should protect communications made by individuals seeking to become clients. First, Manville was a 'client' for privilege purposes because she was consulting the law firm with a view to obtaining professional legal services, and the privilege applies to preliminary discussions even if employment does not result. Second, the communication to the attorney's employee, Ward, is protected because Ward was a 'representative of the lawyer' acting as a necessary intermediary to assist in the rendition of legal services. Third, the privilege protects the client's communication of facts, as a full disclosure of facts is essential for the attorney to provide competent legal advice; the communication does not need to contain discussion of legal points to be privileged.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and arguably expands the scope of the attorney-client privilege under Alaska law by aligning it with modern evidence rules and the majority common-law view. It establishes that the privilege attaches at the initial point of contact when a person seeks legal help, not just after formal retainer. By extending the privilege to communications with non-lawyer agents like investigators, the court recognizes the practical realities of modern law practice and provides greater security for potential clients, thereby encouraging them to seek legal counsel without fear of disclosure.
