LP V. Burns And Levinson's Case

1198 Words5 Pages
A lawyer has fiduciary duty to protect the interests of his clients. This duty comes into a conflict when the client’s interests may be adverse to the lawyer’s or his law firm’s personal interests. This conflict clearly arises in cases where the client may have a potential legal malpractice claim against the lawyer. In such a situation, the lawyer may need a lawyer to represent him and his law firm. The question then arises as to the lawyer’s legal rights to a lawyer and most importantly the confidentially of his communication with his lawyer. The law is well established that everyone, including a lawyer, should not be denied the right to have a lawyer. The California law, however, is unclear in regards the lawyer’s right to have confidential…show more content…
The court held that in the instant case the court had either found that these conditions were met or they were undisputed. Therefore, the communication was privileged and protected from disclosure. I believe the criteria set forth in RFF Family Partnership, LP v. Burns & Levinson is a very practical and rational one. It allows the lawyer to protect and serve his fiduciary duty to his client, and at the same time if a conflict should come up, it allows the lawyer to seek advice of a lawyer without the fear intimidation by way of disclosure. Such privileged communications lead to resolutions in resolving existing conflicts, and avoiding potential conflicts. At the same time the client is protected by the wall created by the four factors set forth in RFF Family Partnership, LP
Open Document