II. The Attorney-Client Privilege Compared To The
Duty Of Confidentiality And The Work Product Doctrine
A. The Fiduciary Duty of Confidentiality
The duty of confidentiality arises out of the fiduciary duties owed by the attorney to the client, which are generally viewed as twofold: loyalty and confidentiality.
Like the attorney-client privilege, the duty of confidentiality serves the purpose of contributing to the trust that is the hallmark of the attorney-client relationship whereby the client is able to communicate fully and frankly without the threat of the legally damaging, embarrassing or secret information being shared with others.
The duty of confidentiality is broader than the attorney-client privilege; it is not subject to the same exceptions. It includes, but its assertion is not limited to, information passed directly to the lawyer by the client; it is not limited to legal advice or communications related simply to legal matters. The duty also applies to communications with only potential clients. The duty survives the termination of the attorney-client relationship, and even the client’s death.
B. The Attorney Work-Product Doctrine
The attorney work-product doctrine is distinct from the attorney-client privilege and fiduciary duty of confidentiality. The work-product doctrine is narrower than either the attorney-client privilege, or the duty of confidentiality.
Work product is generally defined as some type of writing that reflects an attorney’s impressions, plans, conclusions, opinions, legal research, strategy, theories, or the like, and it is normally absolutely protected from discovery or compelled disclosure.
The work product doctrine also may extend to unwritten opinions or theories of an attorney. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 196 Cal.App.4th 1263, 127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 768, 777-779 (2011).
Work product protection does not lose its protection because it is communicated to the client.
“Qualified” work product may reflect attorney work or investigation, but which is not the attorney’s “brain work” per se. This work product may not be absolutely protected from disclosure. The boundaries are ambiguous. The doctrine is limited in federal court. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 26(b)(3); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-511 (1947).
Work product belongs to the attorney, not the client.