Magill

Magill v. Superior Court

Good Law
103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 355·86 Cal. App. 4th 61
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 2001F035276California27,551 words

Opinion

Opinion

No appearance on behalf of Respondents.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Catherine G. Tennant, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest.

ARDAIZ, P.J.

This case involves several issues directly bearing on the attorney-client privilege, including what constitutes a privileged communication, and what constitutes appropriate action by a special master conducting a search of an attorney's office. At the outset we set forth the nature of the issues and our conclusions.

If an attorney takes a photograph of an object that is itself not privileged, is that photograph privileged or may it become privileged because it may lead to disclosure of a client's identity? Under the unusual circumstances of this case, we conclude the attorney-client privilege does not apply.

This case further presents a textbook example of how to execute a search warrant and violate the protections inherent in the special master statute. Indeed, the conduct of the parties herein—the special master, the law enforcement officers, the district attorney's office, and the Attorney…

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.