Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalGirl
I would think that the groups that agreed to participate in the program are considered to be clients of the firm. I'm no legal expert but that's what seems logical to me.
Also, I would think that I would stongly discourage members of non participating groups to use that number at all. If there's not any kind of attorney privilege it could cause even more problems. I'm all for reporting hazing to the proper authorities. That number would not be "proper" for non participating groups.
|
I really think it's questionable whether there's privilege. Attorney client privilege only apples to communications between attorney and client which are for the purpose of seeking legal advice AND there must be an expectation of privacy.
In this case, the *organization* is the client. The individual is not. A/C privilege within organizations is a tricky thing. Personally, I wouldn't expect there to be A/C privilege, although, I think my conclusion is questionable.
I think we could probably find A/C privilege where each organization is involved. They probably all separately contract with the firm rather than through this umbrella organization.
The bottom line is -- if someone was going to report something and that person wanted it to be anonymous, they should just remain anonymous. That's the only safe way to keep their identity secret. Otherwise, there's always a chance they'll be asked to come forward in a more prominent manner.
eta: This isn't legal advice.. just my opinion. Of course, if the individual is concerned, they ought to definitely consult an attorney in their own state (and in that case, A/C privilege almost always applies).
Hybrid Mode
