Avoid the Unforced Error: Simple Steps to Prevent Waiving the Attorney-Client Privilege

Brian J. Massimino • July 15, 2020
Question: What do tennis, pickleball, politics, and the attorney-client privilege all have in common?  

Answer: Unforced errors.  
Merriam-Webster defines an "unforced error" as "a missed shot or lost point (as in tennis) that is entirely a result of the player's own blunder and not because of the opponent's skill or effort".

In the context of the attorney-client privilege (“ACP”), a frequent blunder involves forfeiting the ACP. In many instances, those communications are of a sensitive nature and the blunder is almost entirely avoidable. This article aims to provide guidance to prevent some of the more common unforced errors.

Before unpacking the frequent errors, a brief overview of the ACP, its purpose and elements will set the stage. The ACP exists to “prevent the disclosure in judicial proceedings of the communications between the attorney and the client.” People v. Radojcic, 2012 IL App (1st) 102698, ¶ 14, 969 N.E.2d 501, 505, aff'd, 2013 IL 114197, ¶ 14, 998 N.E.2d 1212.

The purpose of the ACP is to “encourage and promote full and frank consultation between a client and legal advisor by removing the fear of compelled disclosure of information.” Consolidation Coal Co. v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 89 Ill. 2d 103, 117–18, 432 N.E.2d 250, 256 (1982). Needless to say, an attorney would be limited in what he or she can do to assist a client if the client hesitates disclosing all the necessary information to the attorney.  

To receive protection of the ACP, the party claiming the ACP must show that (1) the statement originated in confidence that it would not be disclosed; (2) it was made to an attorney acting in his legal capacity for the purpose of securing legal advice or services; and (3) it remained confidential. Pietro v. Marriott Senior Living Servs., Inc., 348 Ill. App. 3d 541, 551, 810 N.E.2d 217, 226 (2004).

It is worth noting that payment to an attorney is not necessary to establish the ACP. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 580 F.2d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir. 1978). Similarly, execution of a contract with an attorney is not required to establish ACP. Id. This allows clients to maintain the ACP during the process of interviewing attorneys. 

It is also worth noting that the termination of the attorney-client relationship does not terminate the ACP. Rather, the attorney-client privilege survives the termination of the relationship. People v. Ryan, 30 Ill.2d 456, 197 N.E.2d 15 (1964).

With this in mind, let’s address some common unforced errors in the ACP.

ERROR #1: Sharing an attorney's communications or advice with a third person.

One of the essential elements of ACP is that the privileged communication “remains confidential.” Without this element, one must assume that the ACP does not attach. Sharing an attorney’s communication or advice with a third party is a common (and most unfortunate) unforced error. This type of error is common in business transactions. In an effort to further the negotiations of the transaction, a client simply forwards an email from her attorney to the other party to the transaction. In doing so, the client has made a significant mistake. Such a disclosure “almost invariably surrenders the privilege.” United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975).  

PREVENTING THE ERROR: Do not send or otherwise share any communication or advice with another person unless specifically instructed by your attorney.

ERROR #2: Assuming that ACP attaches to all communications to an attorney. 

Often clients believe that anything that they send to their attorney is automatically protected by the ACP. This is not the case, and failing to understand this underpins other unforced errors. Courts are wise to the strategies and tactics that less than scrupulous attorneys and clients have utilized to exploit ACP protections. Courts have said that the ACP “would never be construed to allow a client to funnel papers and documents into the hands of its lawyers for custodial purposes and thereby avoid disclosure.” Radiant Burners, Inc. v. American Gas Ass'n, 320 F.2d 314, 324 (7th Cir.1963). 

Similarly, the simple act of copying your attorney on an otherwise non-privileged communication, will not transform that communication or attachment into a privileged one. Lee v. Chicago Youth Centers, 304 F.R.D. 242, 248 (N.D. Ill. 2014), objections sustained in part and overruled in part (Aug. 6, 2014).

PREVENTING THE ERROR: Appreciate the nuances and the essential elements of the ACP. It may be wise to simply get on the phone with your attorney to discuss the matter before clicking send on an email.

ERROR #3: Communicating with an attorney in the presence of a third party.

When a client voluntarily discloses information to an attorney in the presence of third parties who are not agents of either the client or the attorney, the information is not privileged. In re Himmel, 125 Ill.2d 531, 533 N.E.2d 790, 794, 127 Ill. Dec. 708 (1988).

There are some notable exceptions to this rule. If the other elements of the attorney-client privilege are met, the ACP extends to representatives of the lawyer, including associates, paralegals, secretaries, and investigators. People v. Knippenberg, 66 Ill.2d 276, 362 N.E.2d 681, 684, 6 Ill.Dec. 46 (1977).

PREVENTING THE ERROR: Maintain the ACP by insisting the communications with your attorney and his or her agents and coworkers are conducted without others present. This work merely scratches the surface of issues related to the ACP. Hopefully, it provides enough insight to rethink practices that lead to these unforced errors.

If you would like to learn more about this topic, please contact the author, attorney Brian Massimino, at (312) 736-1262 or at bmassimino@lavellelaw.com.




More News & Resources

Lavelle Law News and Events

The Junk Fee Ban Act and pricing transparency legislation.
By Sarah J. Reusché and Jacob Rotolo April 23, 2025
If enacted, the Junk Fee Ban Act would protect consumers from hidden fees and promote fair business practices in Illinois. While there has yet to be legislation in the proposed Junk Fee Ban Act that excludes dealerships, it will be important to look for future updates on this bill, as Illinois is quickly becoming a hub for vehicle innovation and automotive plant expansion.
Ancillary probate is required when a person dies owning real estate outside of their home state.
By Heather A. McCollum April 21, 2025
When someone passes away owning property in another state, their estate may need to go through ancillary probate—a secondary court process in that state.
$9.9 Million Dollar Purchase of Packaged Multi-Unit Properties
By Commercial Real Estate April 18, 2025
Lavelle Law represented a joint venture in its $9.9 million acquisition of four multi-unit buildings.
Type F Reorg offers a means of achieving structural change while preserving tax continuity
By Steven A. Migala and Nathan P. Toy April 14, 2025
A Type F reorganization (“F Reorg”), governed by Section 368(a)(1)(F) of the Internal Revenue Code, provides a strategically significant mechanism for corporate restructuring. Defined as a “mere change in identity, form, or place of organization of one corporation,” an F Reorg permits a corporation to alter its legal existence while being treated for federal tax purposes as the same entity. This recharacterization allows for the uninterrupted preservation of tax attributes while maintaining shareholder continuity.
Estate Planning for Your Pet: Securing Your Pet’s Future with a Pet Trust
By Jackie R. Luthringshausen April 10, 2025
When it comes to estate planning, most people think about providing for their loved ones—but what about the furry, feathered, or scaled members of your family? In the United States, 68% of households own at least one pet, according to the American Pet Products Association’s 2023-2024 National Pet Owners Survey. For many, pets are more than just companions—they’re family. Ensuring their care after your death or incapacity is a vital part of comprehensive estate planning. In Illinois, a Pet Trust offers a powerful solution to guarantee your pet’s well-being long after you’re gone.
IRS Press Release Addresses Payment Plan Options
By Timothy M. Hughes April 10, 2025
IRS Press Release Addresses Payment Plan Options - A recent press release by the IRS addressed the options that are available to taxpayers who may owe more on April 15th than they can pay. The IRS advised taxpayers that they do not need to wait until April 15 to file their 2024 federal return, and if they owe and are unable to pay the balance in full, there are payment plans available to help them pay their tax obligation.
Learn about essential legal protections to strengthen your business and safeguard your interests.
By Lavelle Law April 9, 2025
Join us on May 21 in Schaumburg for an engaging Breakfast Briefs seminar, delving into vital strategies to fortify your business. This session will explore the critical role of crafting ironclad non-compete agreements, shielding your trade secrets, and mastering the nuances of temporary restraining orders (TROs) and injunctive relief. Our presenters, attorneys Matthew Sheahin and Jennifer Tee, bring a wealth of experience in this legal domain. Seize this chance to bolster your company’s legal protections and lay a solid groundwork for enduring success!
FinCEN Eliminates BOI Reporting Obligations!
By Frank P. Portera March 25, 2025
On March 21, 2025, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued its interim final rule stating that those entities previously classified as "domestic reporting companies" are now exempt from all BOI reporting requirements. On the other hand, all foreign entities registered to do business in the USA must file their own initial BOI reports within 30 days of the initial final rule's publication, if they have not done so already.
Join us April 3, 2025 for Business After Hours 5-7 PM
By Lavelle Law March 19, 2025
Spring is here, and with baseball season kicking off, we’re stepping up to the plate with our annual Lavelle Law Business After Hours event. We’re excited to partner with our friends in the Schaumburg business community for an evening of networking, good vibes, and a few surprises—all hosted in the friendly confines of our Schaumburg office. Bonus points: Feel free to rock your favorite baseball team’s gear and show off your fandom while you’re at it!
Delaware Court  Provides the Standard of Supreme Review for the Redomestication of Corporations
By Steven A. Migala and Anthony Letto March 12, 2025
Delaware corporations seeking to redomesticate to another state should be advised that on February 4, 2025, the Delaware Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Palkon v. Maffei, C.A. No. 2023-0449-JTL, addressing a challenge to TripAdvisor's redomestication from a Delaware corporation to a Nevada corporation. The case raised important questions regarding the standard of review applicable to such reincorporations, particularly when fiduciaries may derive a benefit from shifting to a legal regime perceived as more friendly.
More Posts