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

Event
Apr 23, 2026
Driving Ahead: Insights from Industry Leaders Auto Finance Seminar

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Mar 13, 2026
DOJ Settlement with Car Retailer Highlights SCRA Repossession Risks

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Mar 11, 2026
Compliance Considerations for GDPR Consent in Biotech Clinical Research

Press Release
Mar 4, 2026
Marcia Mueller Named the 2026 Mentorship Award Winner by YWCA Northwestern Illinois

Press Release
Mar 3, 2026
Hinshaw Announces New Administrative Leadership Appointments

In The News
Feb 27, 2026
Hinshaw Partners Examine Implications for Nursing Homes of New Illinois Aid-in-Dying Law

In The News
Feb 24, 2026
Lucy Wang Authors Law360 “Expert Analysis” on Why Attorney Civility Means More in 2026

Press Release
Feb 13, 2026
Hinshaw Team Wins Appeal in Criminal Indictment of Waukegan City Clerk Janet Kilkelly

Press Release
Feb 10, 2026
Hinshaw Trial Team Secures $0 Defense Verdict in $15 Million Auto Accident Trial

Press Release
Feb 5, 2026
Hinshaw Legal Team Secures Directed Verdict in Florida Equine Fraud Case

Press Release
Feb 4, 2026
Hinshaw Celebrates 17 Consecutive Years of Being Named an Equality 100 Award Winner

![[Video] New Regulatory Priorities Under Mayor Mamdani’s NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection](/a/web/oHiTWa7kRy3Ht1brq6k4BT/bkMx39/new-york-city-skyline.jpg)
