"Lying" Lawyer and tape

[carey]

What is the name of your state? Tenessee

I recorded a meeting with my lawyer. He stated he "wouldn't charge me anymore".

Now he says he NEVER said that.

meeting was in a conference room at law firm, door open. he is a partner.

Does he have a right to privacy? (Fourth Amendment)
Does the attorney have an expectation of privacy? (attorney-client priviledge or other)

I think it is legal for me to play it back to him only. Don't want to hurt anyone. Don't want to get in trouble. Just want him to stop lying to me. He advised me that recording conversations was legal in TN.

ps too late to get another attorney, case closed. guess who lost....

SUBSTANTIAL ATTORNEY FEES!!!What is the name of your state?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What is the name of your state? Tenessee

I recorded a meeting with my lawyer, secretly. He stated he "wouldn't charge me anymore".

Now he says he NEVER said that.

meeting was in a conference room at law firm, door open. he is a partner.

Does he have a right to privacy? (Fourth Amendment)

Yes.

Does the attorney have an expectation of privacy? (attorney-client priviledge or other)

yes

Because if he doesn't, I think it is legal for me to play it back to him only without going to jail. Don't want to hurt anyone. Don't want to get in trouble. Just want him to stop lying to me.

You can play it back to him all you want. Then he will call the police and have you arrested.

ps too late to get another attorney, case closed. guess who lost....

SUBSTANTIAL ATTORNEY FEES!!!What is the name of your state?

oh well.

 

[carey]

case law???

Is there any case law addressing this, with an attorney and client

 

[carey]

perjury

I thought perjury was illegal too. Oh I forgot he didn't "lie" because he wasn't under oath...

 

[tranquility]

Isn't Tennessee a one party state? I think only one person in a conversation need give permission in order for a recording to be legal.

 

[carey]

privacy

Yes it is BUT, the problem is the fourth amendment allows people privacy.

and the laws that deal with recording allow it only if the other doesn't have the "expectation of privacy". and that is why I am stuck trying to figure this out.

I did read one case about a Doctor/patient recording. Doc lost. He didn't have the expectation of privacy they said.

But we are talking about lawyers and lawyers are prosecutors and judges. there has got to be a way. All these people on these forums, My goodness, how could I have been sooo naeve.

lawyers are hurting people all the time!!!!

thinking about calling the local DA and see if they will tell me.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Isn't Tennessee a one party state? I think only one person in a conversation need give permission in order for a recording to be legal.

This is not a question of one or two party state. The recording was made in the attorney's office. There is an expectation of privacy within the workplace and the poster will have to overcome that expectation in litigation.

If she has an extra $20,000 or so she might be able to do so. but doubtful.

 

[tranquility]

carey:

Yes it is BUT, the problem is the fourth amendment allows people privacy.

You mean I can't search my child's room or force him to go to a church of my choice? (I was going to continue the joke, but am a bit busy today.) The Fourth Amendment limits government power.

BB:

This is not a question of one or two party state. The recording was made in the attorney's office. There is an expectation of privacy within the workplace and the poster will have to overcome that expectation in litigation.

You're usually pretty good (although surley) in your answers and I hesitate to question you when I don't know the answer myself, but how is a person's expectation of privacy violated when takes a recording of a conversation he is participating in? Could the OP testify as to what was said without violating this "expectation of privacy"? Why would an attorney talking with his client have an expectation that conversation is private?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

BB:

You're usually pretty good (although surley) in your answers and I hesitate to question you when I don't know the answer myself, but how is a person's expectation of privacy violated when takes a recording of a conversation he is participating in? Could the OP testify as to what was said without violating this "expectation of privacy"? Why would an attorney talking with his client have an expectation that conversation is private?

That's what the poster will have to prove to the court, that the conversation was not private and the attorney did not have an expectation of privacy. The task is much harder to do when you are arguing that the conversation took place between ONLY the two participants in an office where there is a legally binding relationship.

If I were the attorney I would immediately file criminal charges. But that's just me

 

[BelizeBreeze]

FURTHERMORE:
There are two big problems with the current poster's situation, and they have nothing to do with the covert taping statutes:

1. Rules of Evidence:

"tape recordings (or) transcripts... (are) presented in evidence by (a) witness who was present during their recording or who monitored the conversations, if he was so situated and circumstanced that he was in a position to identify the declarant with certainty."
State v. Jones, 598 S.W.2d 209, 223 (Tenn. 1980).

2. Work Product Exception:

As the Supreme Court observed in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), the work-product doctrine is critical to a lawyer's ability to render professional services to his client:

"it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel. Proper preparation It of a client's case demands that he assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant go from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference.... This work is reflected of course, be in interviews, statements, memoranda, correspondence, briefs, mental impressions, personal beliefs, and countless other tangible and intangible ways...."

"Were such materials open to opposing counsel on mere demand, much of what is now put down in writing would remain unwritten. An attorney's thoughts, heretofore inviolate, would not be his own. Inefficiency, unfairness and sharp practices would inevitably develop in the giving of legal advice and in the preparation of cases for trial. The effect on the legal profession would be demoralizing. And the interests of the clients and the cause of justice would be poorly served." Id. at 510-11.

Although "factual" work-product may be discoverable upon a showing of substantial need for the information sought, the protection afforded to "opinion" work-product -- which reflects counsel's subjective beliefs, impressions, and strategies regarding a case -- is nearly absolute. As the D.C. Circuit explained in In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 809-10
(D.C. Cir. 1982), "to the extent that work product reveals the opinions, judgments, and thought processes of counsel, it receives some higher level of protection, and a party seeking discovery must show extraordinary justification." Accord Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 401 (opinion work product "cannot be disclosed simply on a showing of substantial need and inability to obtain the equivalent without undue hardship").

 

[tranquility]

Well, I'm pretty sure it's not a crime. That's what the one party permission deals with. My assumption, based on the OP's post is that he was taping the attorney's conversation with him, making the permission of one party patent.

Next, because the conversation was taped when the client was in a meeting with the attorney, I'd say he was situated in a position to identify him with certainty.

Finally, this is the client we're talking about. He has the right of work product confidentiality, not the attorney. I think the client will waive confidentiality here.

BelizeBreeze, those cites were not helpful at all. One of us is missing what is happening here. My understanding is that a client taped a conversation with his attorney. This conversation had some comment by the attorney telling the client he would not charge him any more. Attorney refuses to admit he said that. Client has a tape recording of that meeting and wants to use it to prove the attorney did say that.

What am I missing?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Well, I'm pretty sure it's not a crime. That's what the one party permission deals with. My assumption, based on the OP's post is that he was taping the attorney's conversation with him, making the permission of one party patent.

Absolutely not. This is not assumptive but factual.

Next, because the conversation was taped when the client was in a meeting with the attorney, I'd say he was situated in a position to identify him with certainty.

Again, absolutely not. The Plaintiff cannot attest to the authenticity of the tape in this situation.

Finally, this is the client we're talking about. He has the right of work product confidentiality, not the attorney. I think the client will waive confidentiality here.

Really? The client has the right to waive attorney-client priviledge, NOT work product rights. Those belong exclusively to the attorney.

BelizeBreeze, those cites were not helpful at all. One of us is missing what is happening here. My understanding is that a client taped a conversation with his attorney. This conversation had some comment by the attorney telling the client he would not charge him any more. Attorney refuses to admit he said that. Client has a tape recording of that meeting and wants to use it to prove the attorney did say that.

What am I missing?

You are assuming that the tape is admissible in court and it clearly is a question of fact for the court. In citing the case law on the subject, I simply tried to show you this is NOT a simple question of right to record.

Hell, I didn't even touch on the Business confidentiality aspect of the taping.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Just to clarify:

I am not saying you are wrong and I am right.

What I AM saying is that if I were the attorney's representation that tape would NOT get it

 

[tranquility]

BB, you can say I'm wrong. My feelings won't get hurt. I love to argue.

Again, absolutely not. The Plaintiff cannot attest to the authenticity of the tape in this situation.

Why not? Here, the OP was in the conversation. The rule could be followed.

Really? The client has the right to waive attorney-client priviledge, NOT work product rights. Those belong exclusively to the attorney.

No. If the attorney wanted to disclose the trial strategy to the opponent, could he do so? Second, you have not shown the conversation regarding the billing of the client to be "work product". While the recording may make the conversation tangible, I'm pretty sure it would not be related to trial preparation. The basic theory of work product is to promote the adversary system by safeguarding the fruits of an attorney's trial preparations from the discovery attempts of the opponent. I don't think that would fit here. And, I've never heard of work product being used to keep parts of the client file away from the client.

Hell, I didn't even touch on the Business confidentiality aspect of the taping.

Good that you haven't. We shouldn't spend much more time on frivolous arguments.

 

[fairisfair]

and how come this attorney has the right to the expectation of privacy,

but this one doesn't???

http://legalsoapbox.freeadvice.com/...vernment_offices,_charged_with_indecency.htm;)