Jeffrey P. Mongiello, Associate in the Litigation & Business Disputes and Health Care & Life Sciences practice, in the firm’s Newark office, was quoted in SHRM, in “Supreme Court Declines to Clarify Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege,” by Allen Smith.
Following is an excerpt:
On Jan. 23, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed its review of a case that would have clarified the scope of the attorney-client privilege, delivering a brief decision stating that review of the case was improvidently granted. We’ve gathered articles on the news from SHRM Online and other media outlets.
Dual Purpose Communications
The justices heard oral arguments in the case, In re Grand Jury, earlier this month. The case involved when communications with both legal and nonlegal advice should be protected by the attorney-client privilege. …
Decision Would Have Been Significant
The Supreme Court “does not often weigh in on the scope of attorney-client privilege,” said Jeffrey Mongiello, an attorney with Epstein Becker Green in Newark, N.J. “So, when the court does speak, it is consequential.”
He added, “Not all communications to and from counsel are considered privileged just because the communication is with an attorney. The communication must solicit or give legal advice” to be protected.