Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search


Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

December 17, 2014

Finally, Some Good News for the Attorney-Client Privilege

The attorney-client privilege, one of the oldest common-law evidentiary privileges, has been under attack on a number of fronts for some time now. Various forces (both judicial and administrative) have been steadily whittling away at the privilege. In this environment, a recent New York appellate court decision offers a ray of hope, broadens the application of the privilege in the M&A context.

Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (App. Div. 1st Dep't 12-4-2014) considers the application of the so-called "common interest privilege."

In general, the presence of a third party in a communication between the lawyer and the client is sufficient to "bust" the attorney-client privilege with respect to that communication. One of the exceptions to that rule is the "common interest privilege." It permits a third party to be privy to the lawyer-client communication for "the purposes of furthering a nearly identical legal interest shared by the client and the third party." Some New York courts have taken a narrow view of the common interest privilege, holding that it only applies with respect to legal advice involving pending or threatened litigation.

Ambac insured mortgage-backed securities issued by Countrywide and brought suit claiming that Countrywide fraudulently induced it to enter into these insurance transactions. Ambac also sued Bank of America, which acquired Countrywide in 2008, claiming Bank of America was liable as Countrywide's "successor-in-interest."

Ambac sought discovery of communications exchanged by Countrywide, Bank of America and their counsel in connection with the acquisition. Bank of America resisted, claiming that the communications were protected by the common interest privilege. A lower court ruled against Bank of America holding that for the common interest privilege to apply, pending or reasonably anticipated litigation is required. Generally, no such litigation exists in the M&A pre-acquisition or due diligence context.

The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Department reversed. The appellate court reasoned that attorney-client privilege is not limited to litigation situations. Indeed, legal advice is often sought with the goal of avoiding litigation. Attorney-client privilege is designed to encourage clients to be forthright with their lawyers, thus better enabling the lawyer to advise on legal compliance.

The Court found that the case law requiring pending or anticipated litigation did not adequately address the M&A context, where two business entities enter into a confidentiality agreement and undertake acquisition negotiations in which they must share advice of counsel in order to "accurately navigate the complex legal and regulatory process involved in completing the transaction." Denying the common interest privilege in this context "would inevitably result "¦ in the onset of regulatory or private litigation because of the parties' lack of sound guidance from counsel. This outcome would make poor legal as well as poor business policy."

On this basis, the Court rejected the earlier cases and held that communications relating to the acquisition of Countrywide by Bank of America were protected by the common interest privilege.

Parties contemplating M&A activities in New York will welcome the expanded privilege, and may want to add language to their confidentiality agreements confirming its applicability.

Should you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact the author, John P. Lowe, Jr. at or 585-295-4499, or our Corporate Practice Area Co-Chairs, James J. Canfield at or 315-425-2763, or Richard J. Day at or 716-566-1422.


Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media


CDPAP Providers Get First Look at the Future of CDPAP Without FIs


New York State Fiscal Year 2025 Budget: Implications for Employers Unpacked


Lab Providers Under Increased Scrutiny From Civil and Criminal Agencies for OTC COVID-19 Test Claims


NYS Appellate Court Dismisses Claim Based on Material Misrepresentations in Insurance Application


It's Not Over Yet. Turning Your Judgments Into Dollars.


Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Danso, Martinez, Hedges, Thorne, Genwright, and Donet—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits

We're Growing in DC!

We’re excited to announce Barclay Damon’s combination with Washington DC–based Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram. SLS’s 10 lawyers, three paralegals, and four administrative staff will join Barclay Damon while maintaining their current office in DC’s central business district. Our clients will benefit from SLS’s corporate, real estate, finance, and construction litigation experience and national energy-industry profile, and their clients from our full range of services.

Read More

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out