Counsel Concerns

The Supreme Court of California decided that entertainer Bing Crosby's attorney-client privilege ended when Crosby died in 1977. HLC Properties Ltd. V. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, S120332. HLC, the entity to which Crosby's business interests were transferred after his death, sued MCA Records and related companies in 2000, claiming underpayment of royalties from three Crosby recording contracts. During discovery, HLC refused to turn over 59 documents, many of which were between Crosby's attorneys and Crosby employees regarding a 1959-1960 royalty audit conducted on Crosby's behalf. The trial court ruled that the documents weren't privileged, but the California Court of Appeal found that HLC held the privilege as successor of Bing Crosby Enterprises, an unincorporated title for a loose collection of Crosby's various business ventures. Reversing, the state supreme court concluded that; “we do not suggest that entities formed to manage the business affairs of a natural person can never be clients or never hold attorney-client privileges in their own right. Nor do we find that a personal representative's assertion of the privilege categorically forecloses others from claiming it as to the same communications. But the [California] Evidence Code unmistakably provides that the attorney-client privilege belongs only to the client, whether the client is a natural person or a business entity, and the record here amply supports the trial court's determination that Crosby, not Enterprises, was the original client and holder of the privilege with respect to the 59 withheld documents. Under these circumstances, the Evidence Code compels us to find that, when Crosby died, his privilege transferred to the executor of his estate and thereafter ceased to exist upon the executor's discharge.”

Personal Jurisdiction Over Lawyers

The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston, ruled that a Maryland law firm that allegedly committed fraud, among other things, during negotiations for the purchase of a Texas radio station and station license was subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas. Tempest Broadcasting Corp. v. Imlay, 14-04-00080-CV. Defendant Christopher Imlay and his law firm, Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper, had communicated from Maryland on behalf of their Texas client with Tempest through oral and written communications, including draft purchase agreements. The trial court allowed a special appearance by the firm, then dismissed Tempest's claims. Reversing and remanding in an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals noted: “Tempest alleged that Imlay made representations in Texas upon which it relied to its detriment. These allegations form the basis of Tempest's claims against Imlay and the law firm. The evidence in support of these allegations shows that [the defendants] should have known that Imlay's representations, provided in writing and by telephone, would be relied upon by Tempest. … The evidence is also sufficient to support a conclusion that [the defendants] purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and protections of Texas laws when they transmitted Imlay's representations to Tempest in Texas.