Schwartz v. Wenger
267 Minn. 40, 124 N.W.2d 489, 1963 Minn. LEXIS 774 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The attorney-client privilege does not protect communications between a client and attorney made in a public place where they are overheard by a third person without the use of surreptitious methods, as such communications lack the requisite confidentiality.
Facts:
- A plaintiff and defendant were involved in an automobile collision which resulted in litigation.
- During the trial, the plaintiff and his attorney had a conversation in a public corridor of the courthouse.
- The defendant, who was nearby, overheard this conversation.
- The defendant later testified that she overheard the plaintiff tell his attorney that he “didn’t have any books in a small business.”
- To rebut this, the plaintiff's attorney sought to testify that his client had actually said he had no invoices, not no books.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff initiated a personal injury action in the trial court.
- Defendant filed a counterclaim for damages.
- A jury returned a verdict for the defendant on her counterclaim.
- Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (n.o.v.) and for a new trial.
- The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the state's highest court.
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 apply to a conversation between a client and his attorney that takes place in a public courthouse corridor and is overheard by the opposing party?
Opinions:
Majority - Otis, Justice.
No, the attorney-client privilege does not apply to a conversation held in a public place where it can be overheard. The privilege is waived for communications overheard by a third person when the client and attorney fail to take reasonable precautions to ensure confidentiality. The court reasoned that the privilege is strictly construed and applies only to communications that are intended to be confidential. By choosing a public courthouse corridor for their discussion, the plaintiff and his attorney failed to ensure secrecy, thus waiving the privilege as to the defendant who overheard them. However, the court also found that the trial judge's comments disparaging the plaintiff's attorney for seeking to testify constituted prejudicial error. While an attorney testifying is unusual, it was mandatory here to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Because the judge's remarks in front of the jury likely prejudiced the plaintiff's case, a new trial was ordered.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the "confidentiality" element of the attorney-client privilege, establishing that the physical location of a communication is a critical factor. It places the burden on attorneys and clients to ensure their discussions occur in a private setting, as any communication in a public space is at risk of being deemed non-privileged if overheard. This ruling serves as a practical precedent, reminding legal professionals that carelessness can lead to a waiver of what is otherwise a fundamental protection. Additionally, the case reinforces the principle of judicial impartiality, holding that a judge's critical remarks toward an attorney in the jury's presence can be grounds for a new trial due to their prejudicial effect.
