Conners v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting the lack of evidence “that the [party seeking privilege] in this matter ever manifested any intent to grant authority to [a third party] to act as their agents for purposes of seeking legal advice”
• “The attorney-client privilege does not normally attach to privileged communications that are disclosed to persons who are neither the attorney nor the client.”
• “The attorney-client privilege does not normally attach to privileged communications that are disclosed to persons who are neither the attorney nor the client.”
• “The attorney-client privilege does not normally attach to privileged communications that are disclosed to persons who are neither the attorney nor the client.” (citing Ratliff v. Davis Polk & Wardwell, 354 F.3d 165, 170 n.5 (2d Cir. 2003))
• “Corporations, after all, can only act through their agents.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).