Opinion here and I will upload below. Given yesterday's case from Massachusetts, this is a major development in an area of law that matters a lot to law firm and clients. As you can see from the comments to the post about yesterday's decision, people have strong views! (I will update this one.)
The case also upholds intra-firm work product protection.
In summary, the attorney-client privilege applies to communications between a law firm's attorneys and its in-house counsel regarding a client’s potential claims against the firm where (1) there is a genuine attorney-client relationship between the firm's lawyers and in-house counsel; (2) the communications in question were intended to advance the firm's interest in limiting exposure to liability rather than the client's interests in obtaining sound legal representation; (3) the communications were conducted and maintained in confidence; and (4) no exception to the privilege applies. On remand, the burden will be on the Hunter Maclean, the proponent of the privilege, to establish that the privilege exists with evidence that these four elements have been satisfied.
The fiduciary exception was rejected.
It was nice to see the court rely upon the sound scholarship of Elizabeth Chambliss and Barbara Gillers.