Westlaw Result - PDF document

Westlaw Result449 Mass. 609 (2007) T
Westlaw Result449 Mass. 609 (2007) Term (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007))449 Mass. 609 (2007) HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY vs. RAPO & JEPSEN INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., &others. [FN1] Suffolk. May 9, 2007. - August 3, 2007. Present: MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, & COWIN, JJ. Attorney at Law, Attorney-client relationship, Work product. Evidence,Privileged communication, Privileged communication. Motions to compel discovery and to vacate a discovery order were considered by Elizabeth M. Fahey, J. Leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed in the Appeals Court by Mark V. Green, J. John A. Kiernan (Valerie N. Kloecker with him) for Rapo & Jepsen Insurance Services, Inc. (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007)) Roberta R. Fitzpatrick (Laurence A. Schoen with her) for Arbella Mutual Insurance Company. Owen Gallagher (Kara Larzelere with him) for the plaintiff. *610 (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *610) John A. Shope & Katherine B. Schmeckpeper for Boston Bar Association. Ben Robbins, Martin J. Newhouse, & Jo Ann Shotwell Kaplan, for New England Legal Foundation & another. William J. Leahy, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for Committee for Public Counsel http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Search/default.wl?RP=...F%2D1001&ssl=n&RS=W

EBL7.07&VR=2.0&SPa=MassOF-1001 (1 of 10)
EBL7.07&VR=2.0&SPa=MassOF-1001 (1 of 10)8/28/2007 3:18:48Westlaw Result SPINA, J. In this case we formally recognize the longstanding use and validity of joint defense agreements, an exception to waiver of the attorney-client privilege under the common interest [FN2] This is an interlocutory appeal from discovery orders in a civil action in Superior Court in which the Hanover Insurance Company (Hanover) alleges that the defendants, Rapo & Jepsen Insurance Services, Inc. (Rapo & Jepsen); Arbella Mutual Insurance Company (Arbella); Paul V. Brennan, Jr.; and Insurance Management Associates, Inc., conspired to transfer wrongfully certain high-loss motor (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *610)provide funding to facilitate the sale of certain motor vehicle insurance agencies C), known as "exclusive representative C). Hanover served requests for production of documents on Arbella, and Arbella made the following "Request Number 7 All documents concerning communications, contracts, agreements or "Response Number 7 Objection. Arbella objects to Request *611 (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *611)Number 7 to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney client privilege, (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *611)and/or joint defense privilege and will not be produced. " . . .

"Request Number 49 All documents conce
"Request Number 49 All documents concerning Arbella's payment of any defense costs including "Response Number 49 Objection. Arbella objects to Request Number 49 to the extent it seeks http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Search/default.wl?RP=...F%2D1001&ssl=n&RS=WEBL7.07&VR=2.0&SPa=MassOF-1001 (2 of 10)8/28/2007 3:18:48Westlaw Result After Arbella served its responses on Hanover, John Kittel, Arbella's designated deponent pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 30 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 780 (1974), testified that, after Hanover filed its civil action, Arbella agreed to pay and was paying Rapo & Jepsen's attorney's fees. Hanover then filed deposition. *612 (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *612)They further argued that the dates and (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *612)amounts of such payments were protected by the attorney-client privilege and the joint defense agreement, and that the detailed billing statements submitted to Rapo & Jepsen The judge ordered Arbella to produce all the requested documents. [FN3]defense privilege is not yet recognized in this Commonwealth, especially in these circumstances. 1. Common interest doctrine. The common interest doctrine is an exception to waiver of the attorney-client privilege. It is a doctrine in its developmental stages, and most courts that have c

onsidered it have done so in limited cir
onsidered it have done so in limited circumstances. This has given rise to labels such as "joint (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *612)doctrine "extend[s] the attorney-client privilege to any privileged communication shared http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Search/default.wl?RP=...F%2D1001&ssl=n&RS=WEBL7.07&VR=2.0&SPa=MassOF-1001 (3 of 10)8/28/2007 3:18:48Westlaw Result The doctrine traces its origins to Chahoon v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. (21 Gratt.) 822 (1871), a case that applied the attorney-*613 (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *613)client privilege to disclosure of confidential client information among attorneys representing codefendants in a criminal case. The court reasoned that the defendants, Id. at Id. The fact that they engaged separate Id. at 841-842. (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *613) The Supreme Court of Minnesota extended the principle to privileged communications shared between counsel for codefendants asserting common claims in defense of civil actions. Schmitt v. , 211 Minn. 547, 554 (1942), overruled on other grounds by Leer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. ., 308 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 939 (1982). Thereafter, Sedlacek v. Morgan Whitney ., 795 F. Supp. 329, 331 (C.D. Cal. 1992); that it applies to communications In re Grand Jury , 902 F.2d 244, 249 (4th

Cir. 1990); and that it applies to docu
Cir. 1990); and that it applies to documents shared between a Visual Scene, Inc. v. Pilkington , 508 So. 2d 437, 440-442 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987). Courts have applied the principle to Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 94 (3d Cir. 1992); In re Grand , supra at 250; United States ex rel. Burroughs v. De Nardi Corp., 167 F.R.D. 680, *614 (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *614) Courts have said that the common interest doctrine is not limited to litigation or impending litigation. See In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, supra at 249-250; (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *614)United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 244 (2d Cir. 1989); SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 70 F.R.D. 508, 513 (D. Conn. 1976) ("Corporations should be encouraged to seek http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Search/default.wl?RP=...F%2D1001&ssl=n&RS=WEBL7.07&VR=2.0&SPa=MassOF-1001 (4 of 10)8/28/2007 3:18:48Westlaw Result "If two or more clients with a common interest in a litigated or nonlitigated matter are represented by separate lawyers and they agree to exchange information concerning the matter, a The principle articulated in § 76(1) of the Restatement is consistent with the law in the Commonwealth. [FN4]privilege, but prevents waiver of the attorney-client privilege when otherwise privileged (Cite as: 449 Mass. 6

09 (2007), *614)in confidence, with an a
09 (2007), *614)in confidence, with an attorney for a third person having a common legal interest for the "The rule which places the seal of secrecy upon communications *615 (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *615)between client and attorney is founded upon the necessity, in the interest and In the Matter of a John Doe Grand , 408 Mass. 480, 481-482 (1990), quoting Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U.Hatton v. Robinson, 14 Pick. 416, 421 (1833). In the decision, this court stated that the attorney-client privilege is founded on the (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *615)ministers and expounders, both in ascertaining their rights in the country, and Id. at 422. http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Search/default.wl?RP=...F%2D1001&ssl=n&RS=WEBL7.07&VR=2.0&SPa=MassOF-1001 (5 of 10)8/28/2007 3:18:48Westlaw Result The attorney-client privilege is so highly valued that, while it may appear "to frustrate the investigative or fact-finding process . . . [and] create[] an inherent tension with society's need for full In re Grand Jury Investigation, 723 F.2d 447, 451 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1246 (1984), it is acknowledged that the "social good derived from the proper performance of the functions of lawyers evidence." Commonwealth v. Goldman, 395 Mass. 495, 502, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 906 *616 (Cite as:

449 Mass. 609 (2007), *616)(1985), quot
449 Mass. 609 (2007), *616)(1985), quoting United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357, 358 (D. Mass. 1950). The attorney-client privilege not only protects statements made by the client to the attorney in (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *616)necessary agents of the attorney or the client, including experts consulted for the Commonwealth v. Senior, 433 Cavallaro v. United States, 284 F.3d 236, 247 (1st Cir. 2002). Although this court has not had occasion to consider the common interest doctrine or any of its Commonwealth v. Beneficial Fin. Co., 360 Mass. 188 (1971), the The Society of v. Commonwealth, 441 Mass. 662, 666 (2004), we noted without comment that [FN5]parties have brought to our attention numerous well-reasoned decisions of judges in *617 (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *617)the Superior Court recognizing the validity of the joint defense privilege in civil cases. (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *617)United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. See United States v. Bay State ., 874 F.2d 20, 28 (1st Cir. 1989). The First Circuit In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 274 F.3d 563, 574- 575 (1st Cir. 2001). For these reasons, we adopt the principle of Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 76(1) as the law of the Commonwealth. http://weblinks.west

law.com/Search/default.wl?RP=...F%2D1001
law.com/Search/default.wl?RP=...F%2D1001&ssl=n&RS=WEBL7.07&VR=2.0&SPa=MassOF-1001 (6 of 10)8/28/2007 3:18:48Westlaw Result 2. The order. Hanover contends that the order in this case should be upheld for several reasons. First, it argues that the common interest doctrine cannot be applied without the client's knowledge, [FN6]argument. While it is certainly preferable to secure the client's consent before sharing a privileged Foster v. Hall, 12 Pick. 89, 92-93 (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *617)S.J.C. Rule 3:07, Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.6 (a), 426 Mass. 1322 (1998). See id. at comment *618 (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *618)respective clients in the matter at hand, constitutes an effective assertion of the Second, Hanover argues that because there was no written joint defense agreement, the shared supra. Hanover's third claim is that Arbella and Rapo & Jepsen do not share a common (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *618)legal interest sufficient to support application of the common interest doctrine. Hanover Eisenberg v. Gagnon, 766 F.2d 770, 787-788 (3d Visual Scene, Inc. v. Pilkington Bros., PLC, 508 So. http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Search/default.wl?RP=...F%2D1001&ssl=n&RS=WEBL7.07&VR=2.0&SPa=MassOF-1001 (7 of 10)8/28/2007 3:18:48Westlaw Resultgeneral purpose for which [th

e communication] is shared, rather than
e communication] is shared, rather than on the relationship of the parties. Specifically, . . . courts should deem an interest *619 (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *619)where two or more parties share a sufficiently similar interest and attempt to promote Id. We support this more (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *619)attorney-client privilege. Where defendants allege a common interest that is no more than a joint effort to establish a United States v. Bay State Ambulance & Hosp. Rental Serv., Inc., 874 F.2d 20, 28 (1st In re Bevill, Bresler & Schulman Asset Mgt. Corp., 805 F.2d 120, 126 (3d Cir. Fourth, and last, Hanover argues that the detailed bills for legal services rendered to Rapo & In re Grand Jury Subpoena, In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 906 F.2d 1485, 1488 (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *619)or the attorney's mental impressions or legal theories, that is, his work product, which is Matter of Witnesses Before Special , 729 F.2d 489, 495 (7th Cir. 1984). Rapo & Jepsen contend In the Matter of the Reorganization of , *620 (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *620)425 Mass. 419, 421 (1997). The judge made no findings on the question and we are http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Search/default.wl?RP=...F%2D1001&ssl=n&RS=WEBL7.07&VR=2.0&SPa=MassOF-1001 (8 of 10)8/28/2007 3:18:48Westlaw Resul

t 3. Conclusion. The common inter
t 3. Conclusion. The common interest doctrine is recognized in the Commonwealth. The narrative portions of Rapo & Jepsen's legal bills, submitted to Arbella for payment, may contain privileged (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *620)production of documents as to Hanover's requests nos. 7 and 49, and the matter is So ordered. FN1Inc. FN2Legal Foundation and Associated Industries of Massachusetts; and the Committee for Public Counsel Services. FN3described in requests nos. 7 and 49 for which no joint defense agreement was asserted, which have not been made the subject of this appeal, and which Arbella has failed to produce. Those items are FN4a communication described in Subsection (1) is not (Cite as: 449 Mass. 609 (2007), *620)privileged as between clients described in Subsection (1) in a subsequent adverse proceeding between them," also is consistent with the law of the Commonwealth. See . v. Perelis, 263 Mass. 288, 293 (1928). FN5 "General rule of privilege. A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Search/default.wl?RP=...F%2D1001&ssl=n&RS=WEBL7.07&VR=2.0&SPa=MassOF-1001 (9 of 10)8/28/2007 3: