Elijah W. v. Superior Court

Good Law
156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 592·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 363·216 Cal. App. 4th 140·2013 WL 1898187
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 8, 2013B241011ACalifornia6,968 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perluss, J.

A lawyer is obligated to preserve the confidentiality of client information. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subd. (e)(1); Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3-100(A); see Evid. Code, §§ 954, 955.) As a narrow exception to this duty, a lawyer may, but is not required to, reveal confidential information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent a criminal act likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subd. (e)(2); Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3-100(B); see Evid. Code, § 956.5.) An expert engaged to assist the lawyer in his representation of a client is similarly obligated to maintain the confidentiality of client communications obtained in the course of accomplishing the purpose for which the lawyer was consulted. (Evid. Code, §§ 912, subd. (d), 952; see Cal. Law Revision Com. com., 29B pt. 3A West’s Ann. Evid. Code (2009 ed.) foil. § 952, p. 307.)

Under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA) (Pen. Code, § 11164 et seq.) psychiatrists, psychologists, clinical social workers and other mental health professionals are “mandated reporters” (Pen. Code, §…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.