Benge v. Superior Court
131 Cal. App. 3d 336, 1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 1562, 182 Cal. Rptr. 275 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Communications made during a group meeting between an attorney and multiple individuals are protected by the attorney-client privilege, provided the attendees share a common legal interest and the meeting is intended to be confidential.
Facts:
- In the summer of 1976, two meetings were held for members of a local union chapter who worked at the Visalia Prestolite Battery plant.
- The meetings were not open to the general union membership, but only to those who worked at the Prestolite plant.
- Two attorneys retained by the union attended the meetings at the union's request to discuss lead dust conditions at the plant and advise the members of their legal rights.
- Approximately 65 union members attended the meetings to discuss their concerns about lead poisoning and potential legal action.
- Following the meetings, 32 of the approximately 65 members present retained one of the attorneys to file a lawsuit against their employer for lead poisoning.
- The members discussed their experiences with lead dust, and the attorneys provided legal advice concerning workers' compensation and potential third-party lawsuits.
Procedural Posture:
- Thirty-two plaintiffs (petitioners) filed lawsuits against their employer (real parties in interest) for damages from lead poisoning.
- During depositions, the real parties in interest sought to question petitioners about communications made at two 1976 union meetings.
- Petitioners objected to the questions, asserting the attorney-client privilege.
- Real parties in interest filed a motion to compel answers in the superior court (trial court).
- The superior court granted the motion to compel answers.
- After petitioners refused to comply with the disclosure order, the superior court initiated contempt proceedings.
- The California Supreme Court granted petitioners a hearing and transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal, directing it to issue an alternative writ of mandate.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do communications between union members and union-retained attorneys at a group meeting, held for the purpose of seeking legal advice on a matter of common interest, fall under the attorney-client privilege, even if not all members present later become clients in the subsequent litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Franson, Acting P. J.
Yes. Communications between union members and union-retained attorneys at a group meeting held for the purpose of seeking legal advice on a matter of common interest fall under the attorney-client privilege. The court reasoned that an attorney-client relationship is formed when an individual consults an attorney for legal advice, regardless of whether formal employment ensues. The presence of multiple union members at the meeting did not destroy the confidentiality of the communications because they all shared a common interest in the lead poisoning issue at their workplace. Under Evidence Code section 952, individuals who are 'present to further the interest of the client in the consultation' do not waive the privilege. Here, all members at the meeting had a common goal to discuss and receive legal advice concerning their rights, making them all joint clients for the purpose of the consultation. Furthermore, under Evidence Code section 917, communications are presumed to be confidential, and the party opposing the privilege bears the burden of proving otherwise, which the real parties in interest failed to do.
Analysis:
This decision affirms a broad application of the attorney-client privilege under the common interest doctrine. It clarifies that a formal retainer agreement is not necessary for the privilege to attach and that the privilege can protect group consultations where participants share a common legal purpose. This precedent is significant for organizations like labor unions, allowing them to facilitate legal advice for their members collectively without fear that these preliminary discussions will be discoverable. It lowers the barrier for groups of potential plaintiffs to explore their legal options together, strengthening their ability to pursue collective action.
