Spain Mexico
Philadelphia, PA Cherry Hill, NJ New York, NY 1-866-LOCKSLAW
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Locks Law Firm
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Get Started
  • No win, no fee
  • Free consultation
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • Practice Areas
  • Practice Areas
    • All Practice Areas
    • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Get Started
  • Spain Mexico   Spanish
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ

    One of the most prominent personal injury law firms in the tri-state region, the Locks Law Firm is steadfastly committed to protecting the rights of seriously injured victims.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect
    • Hospital Acquired Infections
    • Medication Errors
    • Misdiagnosis / Failure to Diagnose
    • Surgical Errors
    • Needle Stick - CRPS

    Medical malpractice is any act by a health care provider that deviates from accepted standards of medical care and results in the personal injury, disability, or wrongful death of a patient. Nursing home abuse or negligence can take many forms. It can include physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, neglect, negligent care, and even financial exploitation.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Asbestos and Mesothelioma
    • Benzene
    • Chemical Exposure
    • Manganese Exposure
    • Natural Resource Damages
    • Toxic Injuries
    • Workplace Exposure
    • Dacthal Herbicide Ban
    • PERC Exposure
    • Paraquat

    Exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace or environment can cause serious, sometimes fatal health problems, including cancer.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Premises Liability
    • Burns and Chemical Burns
    • Traumatic Brain Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
    • Wrongful Death

    Catastrophic personal injuries include brain and spinal cord injuries, severe burns, carbon monoxide poisoning and, most seriously, death.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
    • Allergan Breast Implant Recall
    • Hernia Mesh
    • IVC Filters
    • NEC Baby Formula

    At the Locks Law Firm, our pharmaceutical litigation and defective drug lawyers are committed to serving personal injury victims and are well versed in the product liability laws that protect consumers.

    Free Case Evaluation

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

(215) 893-0100

Cherry Hill, NJ

(856) 663-8200

New York, NY

(212) 838-3333

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

The Curtis Center
Suite 720 East
601 Walnut Street

Cherry Hill, NJ

801 North Kings Highway

New York, NY

675 Third Avenue | 8th Floor

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

[email protected]

Cherry Hill, NJ

[email protected]

New York, NY

[email protected]

Blog

Three People, One Email and New Law on Waiver of Attorney Work Product

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has just adopted a new test for waiver of the protection of the attorney work product doctrine, but it has reaffirmed the standard test for waiver of the attorney-client privilege. BouSamra v. Excela Health, __ A.3d __, 2019 WL 2509384 (Pa., June 18, 2019) is the story of a discovery dispute about one email sent among three people. The discovery dispute arose in a hospital context, but the tests are not limited to hospitals. 

Excela operated a hospital. Its outside counsel sent an email containing legal advice and attorney work product to Excela’s Senior Vice-President and General Counsel, Fedele. If the email had stopped with Fedele, it would clearly have been protected by both attorney work product and attorney-client privilege. Excela had hired Jarrard, an outside public relations firm, to assist it in managing expected publicity about the results of certain peer review studies. Cate was the principal at Jarrard working on this issue. Fedele forward his outside counsel’s email to Cate, who disseminated it among her team at Jarrard. This triggered the discovery dispute based on waiver.

Did forwarding the email to the outside PR firm waive the protection of the attorney work product doctrine? The answer is maybe. The Supreme Court had not previously addressed waiver of attorney work product. Significantly, “confidentiality is not a cornerstone of the [attorney work product doctrine] privilege.” The Court stated that “[a]ttorney work product need be kept confidential only from the adversary.” The Court concluded, “we hold that the work product doctrine is waived when the work product is shared with an adversary, or disclosed in a manner which significantly increases the likelihood that an adversary or anticipated adversary will obtain it.” 

The Court “recognize[d] that a fact intensive analysis is required to determine whether Fedele sending outside counsel’s email to Cate ‘significantly increased the likelihood that an adversary or potential adversary would obtain it.’” The Court remanded to the trial court to make factual findings. The Court instructed that the lower court “should consider whether a reasonable basis exists for the disclosing party to believe ‘that the recipient would keep the disclosed material confidential.’” 

A dispute arose between the four member majority of the Supreme Court and a three member concurrence in an opinion by Justice Donohue about the importance of the manner of disclosure. The concurrence stated that “in applying the waiver test, the trial court will need to focus on whether Fedele, when disseminating outside counsel’s work product to Cate, took any or all of the necessary and available precautions to reduce or eliminate the likelihood that the information could be obtained” by the adversary. 2019 WL 2509347. The concurrence said that this test “requires a principal (if not exclusive) focus on the manner of disclosure – namely, a careful analysis of the manner in which the work product was disclosed to third parties, including what precautions (if any) were taken to safeguard against the possibility that the information could fall into the hands of an adversary.” (emphasis in original). 

The majority agreed with the concurrence that the manner of dissemination was important but disagreed that the manner was dispositive in this case. According to the majority, the manner of disclosure was clear: Fedele forwarded the email to Cate who gave it to her team at Jarrard. According to the majority, “[d]epending on the facts of a given case, the disclosing party may have a reasonable basis to believe that the recipient will not disseminate the material to actual or anticipated adversaries, regardless of the explicit inclusion of instructions on confidentiality.” 2019 WL 2509384.

A separate concurring opinion by Justice Wecht noted an additional ground to expect confidentiality: “where the relationship between the disclosing party and the third party is governed by rules of professional conduct that entail a duty of confidentiality, it is reasonable to expect that the third party will maintain secrecy.” 2019 WL 2504320. 

Justice Wecht discussed a case in which the attorney had retained the PR firm, though he added that this distinction was not dispositive. He stated that the third party’s employment status was less important than whether there was a reasonable basis to believe the recipient would keep the material confidential.

An additional dispute arose between the majority and Justice Donohue’s concurrence. The majority held that “[t]he purpose of the work product doctrine is to protect the mental impressions and processes of an attorney acting on behalf of a client, regardless of whether the work product was prepared in anticipation of litigation.” The majority stated that the work product rule, Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3, “makes clear that work product protection is not confined to materials prepared in anticipation of litigation ….” This is in response to Justice Donohue’s concurrence taking issue with protecting work product “without regard to whether counsel’s actions were undertaken in anticipation of (or in connection with) litigation.” 2019 WL 2509347.

Though disclosing to a third party work product may not result in waiver of work product protection, disclosing to a third party legal advice to a client here, and almost always, waives the attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege is set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5928, which codifies the common law. The purpose of this privilege is, of course, “to foster the free and open exchange of relevant information between the lawyer and client.” 2019 WL 2509384. “In light of this purpose, however, the privilege is deemed waived once confidential attorney-client communications are disclosed to a third party.”

The Court contrasted this case with cases upholding the privilege where an accountant and an accident reconstruction expert “were privy to confidential information as a necessary means of improving the comprehension between the lawyer and client which facilitated the lawyer’s ability to provide legal advice.” In the present case, sending the email to Cate did not assist either outside counsel or Fedele in providing legal advice to Excela. The email itself did not solicit advice or opinion from Cate. The outside counsel did not send the email to Cate.

The Court acknowledged that a third-party’s presence might be necessary for a lawyer to provide legal advice to a client. “Such a situation may, in instances unlike the present matter, involve soliciting advice or input from a public relations firm.” (italics in original). The Court acknowledged that “the modern practice of law, specifically for litigators, can involve managing and utilizing media relations. That involvement, however, does not always require, or permit, the disclosure of confidential information to a media consultant. Thus, while situations may arise that require a public relations firm to provide insight, advice or opinion on legal advice, the scope of such situations must remain narrowly tailored, as evidentiary privileges remain highly disfavored in Pennsylvania.”

This opinion makes one additional interesting point counsel should remember if a defendant corporation raises attorney-client privilege. For corporations, the attorney-client privilege is limited to directors, officers and other employees who may act on behalf of the corporation. Fedele, the Senior Vice-President and General Counsel, was a high ranking officer permitted to act on behalf of Excela. Fedele forwarded the email not only to Cate at Jarrard but also to other Excela employees. Since the Court held the attorney-client privilege waived by sending the email to Cate, the Court explicitly did not address whether the privilege was waived when Fedele sent the email to the other Excela employees. “[E]valuating this argument is a fact-intensive exercise because a court would be required to determine whether each individual included on the email was a director, officer, or other employee permitted to act on the corporation’s behalf.” Further, “it is unclear whether an in-house employee overseeing Excela’s communications, marketing, and public relations departments would be an individual capable of acting on behalf of the corporation ….”

Jonathan W. Miller

Jonathan W. Miller

Partner
Philadelphia Office
Jonathan has specialized in complex cases, legal issues and appeals for over 40 years. Recent cases include medical malpractice and civil rights violations.
June 25, 2019 Jonathan W. Miller

Tell Us About Your Case

If you can read this, please avoid filling the following input field or your submission may be marked as spam.
Thank you for contacting us! We will be in touch with you shortly.
Uh oh. There was a problem processing your request. Please try again!
Previous Entry

How Do You Prove Medical Negligence?

Next Entry

Partner Andrew DuPont and Team Obtain Millions for Families of Workers Exposed to Benzene

Recent Entries

  • Francesca A. Iacovangelo Named 2025 Pennsylvania Super Lawyer
  • IARC’s Latest Evaluation: Automotive Gasoline Causes Cancer
  • How Personal Technology Can Help You Navigate Legal Matters
  • Seeking Justice: Locks Law Firm Represents Victims of Northeast Philadelphia Plane Crash
  • "Judicial Hellhole"

Archive

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • December 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • January 2023
  • August 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • February 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • September 2011
  • January 2011
  • November 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
1-866-LOCKSLAW
[email protected]
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube
2021 Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubble Award Ten Leaders

Copyright © 2025 Locks Law Firm. Made by Mindlark.

Locks Law Firm only provides legal advice after having entered into an attorney client relationship, which our website specifically does not create. Conversations that originate from website messaging, chat or other two way web based engagement  do not create an attorney client relationship. It is imperative that any action taken be done on the advice of counsel. Because every case is different, the description of awards and cases previously handled do not guarantee a similar outcome in current or future cases. The firm practices law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey & New York as Locks Law Firm. Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America and other organizations that rate attorneys are not designations that have been approved by the State Supreme Courts or the American Bar Association.