As a continuation of Exam Question Number 3, you work as a paralegal for the firm hired to represent Plaintiff Martina against Defendant Vision. You are asked to sit in on the meeting with Martina. When Martina shows up for the meeting, she brings her friend Claudia with her. You ask Martina why Claudia is to participate in the meeting, and Claudia states, "I'm in paralegal school, and I want to sit in and see how things work in a law office." Martina agrees Claudia can sit in on the meeting. During the meeting, Martina admits she knew the real reason she was fired was for stealing TVs. A month after the meeting, Martina has an affair with Claudia's husband. Now, Claudia is set on hurting Martina in any way she can, including destroying her case. Claudia reaches out to Vision's attorney and tells him about Martina's meeting with her attorney. Before trial, Vision's attorney files a motion in limine asking the court to allow Claudia to testify as to all the details discussed at the meeting between you, Martina's attorney, Martina, and Claudia, including the admission that Martina knew she was fired for stealing TVs.

1. Based only on the facts above, does the attorney-client privilege apply? Explain your answer.

2. Martina's counsel files an opposition to the motion on grounds the conversation is protected by the attorney-client privilege. He files a declaration by Martina wherein she admits she agreed Claudia could attend the meeting, but that she needed Claudia there for emotional support. Assuming the court accepts Martina's declaration as true, would the attorney-client privilege apply? Explain your answer.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 Based on the facts presented the attorneyclient privilege would likely not apply to the conversati... View the full answer