A police officer challenging his termination for misconduct allegedly involving a public act of masturbation claimed that his due process rights were violated when the city council, before voting to reject an arbitrator's advisory award reinstating him, received advice from a lawyer who was a partner in the same firm that had represented the city at the arbitration hearing. An intermediate California appeals court held that this did indeed violate the employee's due process rights, and compromised the fairness of the proceeding. A new proceeding was ordered, prior to which the council was to obtain independent legal advice. Sabey v. City of Pomona, #B239916, 215 Cal. App. 4th 489, 2013 Cal. App. Lexis 291.
     Federal court upholds a magistrate's decision to compel attorney-client communications because the plaintiff had discussed the communications in e-mails and instant chats with her family and friends, in blog postings, and with the media. Lenz v. Universal Music, #5:07-cv-03783, 2010 WL 4789099, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 125874, PACER Doc. 351 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2010).
     The fact that a Milwaukee Police liaison officer, who was president of the police union, was present when an officer conferred with his attorney does not erode the officer's claim of attorney-client privilege, because the liaison officer's presence was for the purpose of assisting the attorney. Jenkins v. Bartlett, #06-2495, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9228 (7th Cir.).
     A public official who consults attorneys who are either employed by the governmental entity or hired by the entity can raise the defense of acting on the advice of counsel, and in so acting can raise the defense of qualified immunity. Moreover, the official can decline to reveal the content of the advice he received because it is protected by the attorney-client privilege. Ross v. City of Memphis, #04-5298, 423 F.3d 596, 2005 FED App. 0393, 96 FEP Cases (BNA) 899, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 19756 (6th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     California appellate court holds that "a city attorney's office is not a 'law firm' within the meaning of the vicarious disqualification rule," and a city attorney's office is not disqualified from representing the city in a civil action after an attorney from the firm representing a plaintiff is hired as a deputy city attorney. City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara Co. (Stenson), #B175204, 122 Cal.App.4th 17, 2004 Cal. App. Lexis 1479 (2d Dist. 2004). {N/R}
     Michigan appeals court holds that memoranda by in-house legal counsel "is clearly covered by the attorney-client and work-product privileges," and does not lose its privileged character even if another court orders production. Leibel v. General Motors Corp., #224734, 250 Mich. App. 229, 2002 Mich. App. Lexis 302 (Mich. App. 2002). {N/R}
     Lawyers' disciplinary rules typically prohibit one attorney from communicating directly or indirectly with a person the attorney knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the attorney has the consent of the other lawyer. It is not unethical for an attorney to communicate with a witness who volunteers that he is unsatisfied with the lawyer assigned by his employer to represent him, and the witness expresses a concern that the assigned lawyer might improperly influence his testimony. U.S. v. Talao, #99-10351, 222 F.3d 1133, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 21187, 00 C.D.O.S. 7080 (9th Cir.). {N/R}
     Supreme Court declines to review a divided appellate holding which disallowed attorney-client confidentiality at a meeting between the attorney and fire chief -- because two council members were present. Reed v. Baxter, #96-6384, 134 F.3d 351, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 249 (6th Cir.); cert. den. #97-1966, 1998 U.S. Lexis 4893, 119 S.Ct. 61, sub nom Baxter v. Reed. [1999 FP 3-4]
     White House Counsel case could affect any public employee that consults a government attorney for advice. U.S. Appeals court rejects attorney-client confidentiality for federal grand jury questions directed to government counsel. Lindsey, In re: Bruce R. (Grand Jury Testimony), 148 F.3d 1100, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 17066 (D.C. Cir.); cert. den. 119 S.Ct. 466. [1998 FP 153-4]
     Florida's Attorney General rules that the state's Sunshine law impairs attorney-client confidentiality between government officials and their legal advisors. Fla. Advis. Legal Opin. AGO 97-61 (9-17-97). [1998 FP 154-5]
     A police officer's answers at a disciplinary interview are not exempt from discovery under the attorney-client privilege simply because the city and officer might be a party to a lawsuit arising from the underlying incident. Statements made to IAD investigators were not intended to be confidential within the attorney-client privilege, but rather were made as part of the process to determine whether LAPD policies were adhered to, as part of a disciplinary investigation. Gonzales v. Munic. Ct. (People), #48837, 67 Cal.App.3d 111, 136 Cal.Rptr. 475, 1977 Cal. App. Lexis 1209 (2d App. Dist. 1977). [N/R]