Glade v. Superior Court
1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1162, 143 Cal. Rptr. 119, 76 Cal. App. 3d 738 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies only when a client seeks or obtains legal services to enable or aid in committing a crime or fraud; the attorney's uncommunicated fraudulent intent, unknown to the client, is insufficient to vitiate the privilege.
Facts:
- Wendell and Loma Russell retained attorney J. Richard Glade to represent them in the sale of their motel property, the 'Russell ’N Pines Tower Lodge'.
- During this representation, Glade also represented other parties with interests in the property, including the Hendersons and their corporation, Superior Motels.
- Glade also previously represented William and Olive MacFarland in an earlier, rescinded contract for the sale of the same motel.
- The Russells sold the motel to Farrow Realty Corporation, which executed a third deed of trust in favor of Glade for $25,000 as part of the purchase price.
- Glade subsequently assigned this third deed of trust to Superior Motels, the corporation owned by his other clients, the Hendersons.
- After Farrow Realty defaulted on its payments, Superior Motels initiated foreclosure proceedings against the motel property under the third deed of trust Glade had assigned to them.
- The Russells alleged that Glade committed fraud and malpractice by representing adverse interests during these transactions.
Procedural Posture:
- Wendell and Loma Russell (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit in superior court against J. Richard Glade (defendant) and others, alleging fraud and legal malpractice.
- During discovery, the Russells filed a motion to compel the production of all communications between Glade and the MacFarlands, who were Glade's former clients but not parties to the lawsuit.
- Glade opposed the motion, asserting the attorney-client privilege on behalf of the MacFarlands.
- The trial court granted the Russells' discovery motion, ordering Glade to produce the MacFarland files.
- Glade (petitioner) sought a writ of prohibition from the California Court of Appeal to prevent the superior court from enforcing its discovery order.
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 crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege apply to compel disclosure of a non-party client's confidential communications when the attorney is accused of fraud, but the non-party client is not alleged to have had any fraudulent intent?
Opinions:
Majority - Puglia, P. J.
No. The crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege does not apply to compel disclosure of a non-party client's confidential communications where only the attorney, and not the client, is accused of having a fraudulent purpose. The plain language of Evidence Code section 956 requires an intention on the part of the client to abuse the attorney-client relationship by seeking legal assistance to enable or aid in a crime or fraud. The court reasoned that the privilege's objective—to encourage full and frank communication between client and attorney—would be defeated if a client's confidential information could later be disclosed due to the attorney's uncommunicated and improper intentions. An attorney’s misuse of information does not waive the privilege if the client was unaware of the wrongdoing and sought legal services for a legitimate purpose. The court also found two other statutory exceptions inapplicable: the breach of duty exception (§ 958) only applies to disputes between the specific attorney and client whose communications are at issue, and the joint-client exception (§ 962) is irrelevant because the MacFarlands are not parties to the litigation.
Analysis:
This decision narrowly construes the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, emphasizing that the exception is triggered by the client's intent, not the attorney's. It strongly protects the communications of innocent clients, even when their lawyer is accused of using those communications to harm another party. The ruling prevents litigants suing an attorney for malpractice from gaining access to the privileged files of the attorney's other, non-party clients, thereby reinforcing the durability and client-centric nature of the privilege. This solidifies the attorney's duty to assert the privilege on behalf of former and non-party clients.
Unlock the full brief for Glade v. Superior Court