Lawyers and non-lawyers frequently train their corporate colleagues. Determining any applicable attorney-client privilege or work product protections can implicate a number of variables.
In Hipschman v. County of San Diego, Case No. 3:22-cv-0903 AJB (BLM), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224472, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2024), the court analyzed protections for an “embedded County Counsel attorney[‘s]” training sessions for county employee social workers after the county was accused of violating parents’ civil rights by seizing their minor child. The court ultimately found that the post-incident training deserved both privilege and work product protection. The court contrasted this conclusion with its earlier decision in Hipschman v. County of San Diego, Case No. 3:22-cv-0903 AJB (BLM), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140171 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2024), involving the same scenario, in which the court rejected both protections — based on “the County’s failure to provide a sufficient showing that training materials were written or presented by attorneys” and that they “contained any legal advice.” Hipschman, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224472, at *12-13.
The more recent decision came to the right conclusion, but focused on just two of the variables that lawyers must assess when involved in their clients’ employee training. Next week’s Privilege Point will address some of the others.
