Legal Question in Personal Injury in California

Re: Attorney's privileged communications

Yes, if you can prove them. The stated facts seem 'over the line', and if they harmed the client, there are remedies. Contact the State Bar or an attorney to discuss.

Re: Attorney's privileged communications

You may be confusing two different meanings of the word "privileged." When an attorney communicates with her client, the communications are "privileged" in the sense that the court cannot order them disclosed to anyone and in the sense that the attorney cannot repeat them to a third party without the client's consent. When someone testifies in court, their testimony is "privileged" in the sense that it cannot form the basis for a defamation lawsuit. In this type of situation the information is publicly available, but the person testifying cannot be sued for doing so.

Your question does not say that the person this attorney was talking about was her client. From the facts you have provided, my hunch is that she was talking about someone other than her client. If this is the case then the attorney-client privilege (the first type I described above) would not apply.

Even if the individual was her client, she may still be able to do what you have described. The attorney client privilege only applies to facts which the client discloses to the attorney as part of the attorney-client relationship. If a dissatisfied client makes terrorist threats against me, those threats are not privileged and I am free to disclose them to the police and to testify about them in court. The attorney-client privilege is supposed to be a shield for the client, not a sword he can wield against his lawyer.

Whether the statements are about a client or not, my sense is that they would all be privileged in the second sense I described above. This is what is known as the "litigation privilege". In California, it applies to statements made in the course of litigation whether they are made in the courtroom or not, and includes statements made to third parties in an effort to further the legitimate goals of the litigation. If a lawyer wants to interview a witness's employer in furtherence of the case she can do so, and nothing she says can lead to a defamation judgment.

Police reports are also privileged, whether they are accurate or not. This rule exists so that people will be willing to report crimes without fear of being sued for it. Knowingly making a false police report is a crime, and fear of prosecution by the government should be all the incentive people need to stay honest.

Knowingly giving false testimony about a material issue is also a crime -- specifically, it is perjury. If the lawyer did this she can be prosecuted, but she remains immune from civil suit because of the litigation privilege.