Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 DECEMBER 2016

Content And Purpose Governs Connecticut's New Standard For Determining Attorney/Client Privilege

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Explore more from Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

On September 6, 2016, the Connecticut Supreme Court published its opinion regarding Michael C. Harrington v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al. (SC 19586).

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
David A. Rose
David A. Rose
Author LinkedIn connections

On September 6, 2016, the Connecticut Supreme Court published its opinion regarding Michael C. Harrington v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al. (SC 19586). As discussed below, this opinion creates a new standard for invoking attorney/client privilege in instances where the communication in question contains both legal and non-legal content.

Facts

This case, on transfer from the Connecticut Appellate Court, involved electronic communications made from 2007 to 2011 between officers of a quasi-public state agency previously named Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) and its contract lobbyists who happened also to be attorneys. At the time, CRRA owned a trash-to-energy plant called Mid-Conn located in the city of Hartford. CRRA entered into an agreement for consultant services with a lobbyist with whom it had a long-standing business relationship and whose firm also provided legal services to the agency. The agreement mainly charged the lobbyist with

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Tenth Circuit Stays Nationwide Eligibility Injunction For Class Of 2022 In Wisne v. NCAA

On August 21, 2026, the Tenth Circuit granted the NCAA’s stay request in Wisne v. NCAA, temporarily restoring the NCAA’s age-based eligibility rules pending resolution of the appeal. Three weeks earlier, Judge Sweeney of the District of Colorado had issued a nationwide injunction that permitted athletes in the Class of 2022 to pursue a fifth year of eligibility.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
Article

Show Your Work: California Federal Court Denies Preliminary Approval Of Data Breach Class Action Settlement

A federal court in California denied preliminary approval of a $2.3 million data breach settlement affecting over 220,000 individuals, finding seven critical deficiencies in the proposed agreement. The decision highlights the rigorous scrutiny courts apply to class action settlements, particularly regarding claims-made distribution processes, inadequate documentation of settlement value, and unexplained disparate treatment among class members.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Article

“LEGAL ANALYSIS SO POOR THAT IT HARDLY DESERVES THE LABEL”: Fifth Circuit COA Destroys Federal Judge For Using AI And I Cannot Believe Lawyers Are Still Using This Junk

A Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling harshly criticizes a federal district judge for relying on AI-generated content in legal orders, revealing fabricated facts and poor legal analysis. The decision raises critical questions about the use of generative AI in legal practice and whether lawyers who adopt such technology are compromising their ethical obligations of competence, confidentiality, and integrity.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Troutman Amin LLP
Troutman Amin LLP
Article

California Federal Court Denies TikTok’s Motion To Dismiss Children’s Privacy Claims Based On Prior Class Action Settlements

A federal court rejected TikTok's attempt to use two prior nationwide class action settlements—totaling over $93 million—to dismiss new privacy claims brought by minors alleging violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. The ruling hinged on whether the current plaintiffs were demonstrably members of the earlier settlement classes based solely on the pleadings, raising critical questions about the scope and enforceability of broad settlement releases in successive privacy litiga
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Video

MR. NUMBER 1 WINS AGAIN!: Concora Credit To Pay $9.375MM To Settle TCPA Wrong Number Class Action As Another Company Bows To Greenwald (Video)

Concora Credit has agreed to pay $9.375 million to settle a TCPA class action lawsuit over wrong number robocalls, with prominent TCPA attorney Mike Greenwald securing another major victory. The settlement includes over $5 million for approximately 147,000 class members, $3 million in attorney fees, and a commitment to spend at least $1 million on TCPA compliance over three years.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Troutman Amin LLP
Troutman Amin LLP
Article

Florida Federal Court Holds That The TCPA’s Do-Not-Call Provisions Do Not Apply To Cell Phone Users

A federal judge in Florida has ruled that cell phone users cannot sue under the TCPA's do-not-call provisions, determining that the FCC exceeded its authority when it extended protections to wireless subscribers in 2003. The decision challenges decades of regulatory interpretation and could fundamentally reshape telecommunications privacy litigation if adopted by other courts.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Article

FTC Issues Rigorous Requirements On Using AI-Assisted Review Or Technology-Assisted Review To Respond To Investigational Subpoenas

The Federal Trade Commission has introduced stringent new requirements for parties using technology-assisted review or artificial intelligence in document production during investigations, mandating extensive upfront disclosures, prescriptive performance metrics, and validation processes. These requirements represent a significant departure from previous FTC practice and may discourage parties from using AI or TAR due to increased complexity and agency oversight. Parties now face critical decisions about wh
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter
Article

SB 54 Is In Effect: What California’s New Packaging Law Means For Your Business

Although being challenged by an injunction filed on August 20, 2026, by a coalition of 17 states, California’s SB 54 Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act is now in effect, and companies that sell, distribute, import, or ship packaged products into California should be evaluating whether they have compliance obligations.
United StatesPrivacy
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

Navigating Ex Parte Contact With Health Care Providers In Medical Malpractice Litigation

In Snyder v. Virginia Mason Medical Center, No. 104136-5 (Wash. Oct. 1, 2026), the Washington Supreme Court held that corporate defense counsel, risk managers, and claims adjusters may not communicate ex parte with a hospital’s former employee health care providers about patient care. The Court reaffirmed Loudon v. Mhyre, 110 Wn.2d 675, 756 P.2d 138 (1988) prohibiting ex parte communication by defense counsel with a plaintiff’s treating physicians, held that prejudice is presumed when Loudon is violated, and ruled that a quality improvement (QI) committee member’s involvement in defense strategy waives the committee’s statutory privilege under Wash. Rev. Code § 70.41.200.
United StatesFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

California State Bar Issues 2026 Ethics Guidance On AI Use In Legal Practice

Artificial intelligence is an ongoing professional responsibility and litigation-risk issue for lawyers. The California State Bar recently published new guidance. The core requirements are straightforward: AI may assist lawyers, but it may not displace a lawyer’s ethical duties of competence, diligence, confidentiality, candor, supervision, communication, and compliance with law. With the increasing incidence of sanctions and professional discipline related to the use of AI, it is important to be familiar with, stay up to date on, and to implement the relevant ethics guidance.
United StatesTechnology
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

Humanoid Robots In The Home – A New Frontier For Product Liability And Privacy Claims

Humanoid robots are entering American homes at an unprecedented pace, with companies like Figure AI, Unitree, and Tesla deploying AI-powered machines capable of learning and adapting in real time. As these autonomous devices become commonplace, outdated legal frameworks governing product liability, privacy protections, and insurance coverage face mounting pressure to address novel risks ranging from physical injuries to unauthorized biometric data collection.
United StatesConsumer Protection
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

California Closes The Third-Party Data Gap In The CCPA Right To Delete: What SB 923 Requires, From Whom, And When

On September 27, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 923 (Chapter 482, Statutes of 2026), known as the Expanding Privacy Rights Act. The law amends two provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): (1) the right to delete (Civil Code § 1798.105); and (2) the methods for submitting consumer requests (Civil Code § 1798.130). The legislation was authored by Senator Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) and sponsored by the California Privacy Protection Agency (also known as CalPrivacy). This amendment takes effect January 1, 2027.
United StatesPrivacy
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

Employment Tip Of The Month – October 2026

There are currently 19 states that legally require employers to permit employees (and sometimes former employees) to view and/or obtain a copy of their personnel file. As of November 8, 2026, that number will increase to 20, when New York’s recently enacted Personnel Records Access Law goes into effect. The majority of states have no law requiring access to personnel files and there is no federal law that confers on current or former employees a statutory right to access their personnel files.
United StatesEmployment and HR
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP