Under Dual Representation Doctrine, Privilege Does Not Apply to Communications Related to Matters on Which Attorney Represents Both Clients
Lawyers for the Profession® Alert
Lawyers for the Profession® Alert | 1 min read
Mar 23, 2015
Anten v Superior Court, 233 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2015)
Brief Summary
The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held that communications made by one joint client to its attorney in a common interest representation are not protected by the attorney-client relationship in a legal malpractice action filed by another joint client against that lawyer.
Complete Summary
Two joint clients retained a law firm to represent them in a matter of common interest. One of the joint clients eventually sued the law firm for malpractice; the other joint client did not. In the course of discovery, plaintiff requested communications made between the firm and the other joint client in the underlying representation. The law firm objected, stating that the communications were protected by the attorney-client privilege, and the other joint client had not waived the privilege. The trial court denied plaintiff's request for the documents.
The appellate court reversed, noting that communications between joint clients in common interest and their attorneys are not confidential. These communications are privileged against strangers, but not among the joint clients and the attorneys. Here, the attorneys were trying to invoke the attorney-client privilege to protect communications from being given to plaintiff. However, because the communications were not confidential to plaintiff, the privilege could not be invoked to bar plaintiff from discovering them. The court also noted that applying the privilege to these communications would create a risk of collusion by attorneys and nonsuing joint clients.
Significance of Opinion
Attorneys who represent joint clients should be careful in agreeing to take on a common interest representation. If one of their clients later sues them for malpractice, the attorney-client privilege may not protect communications made with the nonsuing client regarding the common representation.
For more information, please contact Terrence P. McAvoy, Adam R. Vaught.
This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.
Featured Insights

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota

Event
July 13-15, 2026
Hinshaw Proudly Sponsors 2026 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Webinar
Jul 14, 2026
Scott Seaman Presents on Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion of Insurance

Healthcare Alert
Jul 8, 2026
A New Era of Compliance Standards for California DSOs and MSOs After the Aspen Dental Settlement

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 7, 2026
What Insurers Need to Know About California’s FAIR Plan Assessment Recoupment Guidance

In The News
Jul 6, 2026
Francesco Palanda’s Practical Guide for Mitigating AI-Related Business Interruption Risk

Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter
Jun 29, 2026
Beyond Malpractice: The Rising Threat of Privacy and Statutory Claims Against Lawyers




