The Soapbox

Hood

Joined: 08/14/1998 Posts: 2251
Likes: 2705


"Client identities generally are not protected by the ....privilege"


I'm not sure how or why that is unclear to you. No one in that case disputed that statement of law.

"Like many other jurisdictions, this Court has previously held that client identities are not protected by the attorney-client privilege because the identity of the client is rarely relevant to the legal advice sought. In re Seip's Estate, 30 A. at 227 ("The mere fact of employment is not privileged; but, from the nature of the relation between client and counsel, it is open to inquiry in any court in which the counsel appears as such."). "


(In response to this post by Sabremetrician)

Posted: 04/16/2018 at 5:21PM



+0

Insert a Link

Enter the title of the link here:


Enter the full web address of the link here -- include the "http://" part:


Current Thread:
  Liberal NYC judge. ** -- ConnHoo 04/17/2018 1:36PM
  Today was the perfect example of an echo-chamber. ** -- psychobilly 04/16/2018 9:42PM
  I see Hannity played the bad guy in Billy Madison -- WahooMatt05 04/16/2018 4:25PM
  As noted below, that is incorrect (and silly). ** -- Sabremetrician 04/16/2018 3:39PM
  None of the cases he cited support what he says. ** -- Sabremetrician 04/16/2018 8:04PM
  Pretty much describes Hood in this case. ** -- Sabremetrician 04/16/2018 8:02PM
  No, you are wrong -- Hood 04/16/2018 3:52PM
  That makes oh-for-three on your legal support ** -- Sabremetrician 04/16/2018 4:36PM
  Third case: -- Sabremetrician 04/16/2018 4:28PM
  You once again need to read much more closely -- Hood 04/16/2018 5:24PM
  Ask Kimba Wood ** -- WaxHoo 04/16/2018 3:12PM

Notice: Trying to get property 'queue' of non-object in /data/www/sportswar.com/wp-includes/script-loader.php on line 2781

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /data/www/sportswar.com/wp-includes/script-loader.php on line 2781
vm307