Attorney-Client Privilege
Attorney-Client Privilege Generally
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Opinions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Dialysis Clinic, Inc. v. Medley, No. M2017-01352-SC-R11-CV, 567 S.W.3d 314, 317-18 (Tenn. 2019).
We review a trial court’s rulings on the application of the attorney-client privilege under an abuse of discretion standard. Boyd v. Comdata Network, Inc., 88 S.W.3d 203, 211 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (citing In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 219 F.3d 175, 182 (2d Cir. 2000); *318 Frontier Refining, Inc. v. Gorman-Rupp Co., 136 F.3d 695, 699 (10th Cir. 1998) ); see also Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010) (citing Doe 1 ex rel. Doe 1 v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Nashville, 154 S.W.3d 22, 42 (Tenn. 2005); Benton v. Snyder, 825 S.W.2d 409, 416 (Tenn. 1992); Loveall v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 694 S.W.2d 937, 939 (Tenn. 1985) ). “A court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Lee Med., Inc., 312 S.W.3d at 524 (citing State v. Ostein, 293 S.W.3d 519, 526 (Tenn. 2009); Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 358 (Tenn. 2008); Roman Catholic Diocese of Nashville, 154 S.W.3d at 42). We review the trial court’s factual findings underlying a discretionary decision under a preponderance of the evidence standard. Boyd, 88 S.W.3d at 212. We review the trial court’s legal determinations de novo without a presumption of correctness. Id. (citing Brown v. Birman Managed Care, Inc., 42 S.W.3d 62, 66 (Tenn. 2001); Burlew v. Burlew, 40 S.W.3d 465, 470 (Tenn. 2001); Grand Jury Proceedings v. United States, 156 F.3d 1038, 1042 n.1 (10th Cir. 1998) ).
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
In re Estate of Seeber, No. E2022-01476-COA-R3-CV, p. 14-15 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2023).
“As our Supreme Court has elucidated, ‘[w]e review a trial court’s rulings on the application of the attorney-client privilege under an abuse of discretion standard.’” In re Law Sols. Chicago LLC, 629 S.W.3d 124, 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Dialysis Clinic, Inc. v. Medley, 567 S.W.3d 314, 317–18 (Tenn. 2019)). “A court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. (quoting Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010)). “An abuse of discretion can be found only when the trial court’s ruling falls outside the spectrum of rulings that might reasonably result from an application of the correct legal standards to the evidence found in the record.” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 88 (Tenn. 2001).
Meadows v. Story, No. M2020-00886-COA-R3-CV, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2022).
We review a trial court’s decisions on the attorney-client privilege “using the abuse of discretion standard.” Pagliara, 614 S.W.3d at 89. Even if the court erred, its decisions are subject to the harmless error doctrine. See Blaylock & Brown Constr., Inc. v. AIU Ins. Co., 796 S.W.2d 146, 155 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). To warrant reversal, the error must have “involv[ed] a substantial right” and “more probably than not affected the judgment.” TENN. R. APP. P. 36(b); see TENN. R. EVID. 103 (providing that an evidentiary error must affect “a substantial right of the [complaining] party”). In other words, the error must have resulted in prejudice to the complaining party. See Wallace v. Knoxville’s Cmty. Dev. Corp., 568 S.W.2d 107, 112 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978). And the complaining party has the burden to show prejudice. Bishop v. R.E.B. Equip. Serv., Inc., 735 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).
