Spousal, attorney-client, and medical privileges

Marital Privileges: Two Shields and Their Holders

Federal Rule of Evidence 501 supplies the governing federal privilege law, including two different marital protections: spousal immunity protects a spouse’s refusal to give adverse testimony, while the marital communications privilege protects confidential communications made during marriage.

Spousal immunity, also called the adverse spousal testimony privilege, asks four questions:

1. Is the proceeding criminal?
2. Is one spouse being asked to give adverse testimony against the other?
3. Are the spouses validly married when the testimony is sought?
4. Is the witness-spouse refusing to testify?

If so, the witness-spouse may refuse the adverse testimony. The privilege belongs to the witness-spouse, not the accused spouse. Thus, an accused spouse cannot prevent testimony when the witness-spouse voluntarily chooses to testify. The privilege covers testimony about communications, observations, and other facts; it is not limited to private conversations.

The privilege is tied to the marriage existing when testimony is compelled. A spouse who observed the defendant’s conduct before the marriage may still invoke spousal immunity if the marriage exists when testimony is sought. Conversely, divorce ordinarily ends the ability to invoke spousal immunity for future testimony. Because the privilege protects against adverse testimony, it ordinarily does not apply in a civil case or when the spouse’s testimony is not adverse.

The privilege generally does not shield testimony concerning crimes against the spouse or a child, and courts generally do not allow spouses jointly participating in criminal conduct to use the privilege to suppress evidence of that joint wrongdoing.

The marital communications privilege asks:

1. Was there a communication between spouses?
2. Was it made during a valid marriage?
3. Was it intended to be confidential?

If all three requirements are met, the communication is protected under the federal common law recognized through FRE 501. The privilege applies in civil and criminal proceedings. Both spouses hold the privilege, so either spouse may prevent disclosure of a qualifying communication. Unlike spousal immunity, the privilege generally survives divorce because the communication was made while the marriage existed.

A communication is not confidential if the spouses intended or reasonably expected that an unnecessary third party would hear it. A translator, interpreter, or other person reasonably necessary to facilitate the communication ordinarily does not destroy confidentiality. A child, friend, or bystander whose presence is merely convenient usually does. Voluntary disclosure to an outsider can waive the privilege.

The privilege protects the communication, not the underlying facts. “I told my spouse that I saw the defendant take the money” may be protected as a confidential marital statement, but the spouse’s independent observation of the defendant taking the money is not transformed into privileged fact merely because the spouse later discussed it at home. Acts, conduct, and observations are not communications. A spouse’s silent observation of an event therefore is not covered by the marital communications privilege, even if spousal immunity might prevent the spouse from being compelled to describe it while the marriage continues.

For a statement between spouses, the communications analysis can be run in this order:

Loading diagram…

This chapter is not starred: legal resources may be supplied when it is tested, and where they are not, you need only demonstrate recognition that the topic is at issue. This is closed-book: you must be able to state these requirements from memory.

Legal Advice and Litigation Files: Communication Versus Preparation

The attorney-client privilege is a federal common-law privilege applied through FRE 501. It protects a confidential communication made between a client and the client’s attorney, or their reasonably necessary representatives, when the purpose is to obtain or provide legal advice.

Run the elements in this order:

1. Identify a communication, rather than an underlying fact, physical object, or observation.
2. Identify a client and an attorney, including authorized representatives or staff reasonably necessary to facilitate legal advice.
3. Confirm that the primary purpose was legal advice, not merely business, financial, public-relations, or personal advice.
4. Confirm that the communication was intended to remain confidential and was not voluntarily disclosed to an unnecessary outsider.
5. Check waiver and exceptions.

The client holds the privilege. The attorney may assert it for the client, but the attorney cannot waive it over the client’s objection. For a corporation, the corporation is the client. A corporate employee’s communication with corporate counsel may be privileged when made at the direction of corporate superiors so counsel can provide legal advice to the corporation. The employee need not be part of upper management or a so-called control group. The key facts are the legal-advice purpose, the corporate representation, and confidentiality.

The privilege protects what was communicated, not the facts communicated. A client cannot refuse to disclose what happened merely because the client told the story to a lawyer. A witness’s firsthand observations, a preexisting business record, a physical object, the client’s identity, and usually the amount of a fee are not protected simply because they came to the lawyer’s attention. The lawyer’s own observations are not automatically privileged either.

A mixed conversation must be separated by purpose. A lawyer advising a company about regulatory exposure is giving legal advice; a lawyer advising the company on ordinary pricing or public messaging may be giving business advice. If the communication has both purposes, apply the primary-purpose test; the presence of a lawyer is not dispositive.

Confidentiality is assessed at the time of the communication and afterward. An interpreter, paralegal, or other necessary agent ordinarily does not defeat it. A friend, reporter, or public-relations consultant who is not needed to obtain legal advice ordinarily does. Voluntary disclosure to an adversary waives the privilege. Disclosure to a nonadversary may also waive it if inconsistent with maintaining confidentiality; a party cannot selectively reveal favorable portions of a legal discussion while blocking the rest of the same subject.

The crime-fraud exception removes protection when the client seeks the lawyer’s assistance to plan or carry out a future crime or fraud. It does not automatically strip protection from communications seeking advice about completed misconduct. The question is the client’s purpose in seeking the advice.

Work product protection is different. It is governed principally by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), not by the attorney-client privilege. It protects documents and tangible things prepared by or for a party or the party’s representative in anticipation of litigation or for trial.

The work-product analysis requires:

1. Litigation was reasonably anticipated, or the material was prepared for trial.
2. The material was prepared because of that anticipated litigation, rather than in the ordinary course of business.
3. The material was prepared by or for a party or the party’s representative, such as an attorney, investigator, insurer, consultant, or agent.

If the material would have been created in substantially the same form as part of ordinary business operations even without the prospect of litigation, it is not work product merely because a lawsuit later occurred. A routine accident report prepared under a company’s ordinary safety policy is the classic near miss. An investigator’s report commissioned after counsel reasonably anticipates litigation is different.

Ordinary or fact work product is qualified protection. The opposing party may obtain it by showing substantial need and an inability, without undue hardship, to obtain its substantial equivalent by other means. Witness interview notes may contain factual work product even when they record facts known to the witness, but the underlying facts remain discoverable through the witness or another proper source.

Opinion work product-an attorney’s mental impressions, conclusions, legal theories, or case strategy-receives much stronger protection. A showing of substantial need ordinarily does not justify disclosure of the lawyer’s mental impressions. Do not say that all work product is absolute, or that all work product becomes discoverable merely because it contains facts.

A lawyer’s private interview with a witness may satisfy both doctrines, but for different reasons. The client’s communication to the lawyer may be privileged if made for legal advice. The lawyer’s notes may be work product because they were prepared for anticipated litigation. The witness’s underlying knowledge is not privileged merely because the lawyer recorded it.

The following comparison keeps the triggers and consequences separate:

Consider this item as an integrated application of the attorney-client and work product rules:

Aster Corporation learns that an employee may be sued after equipment fails and injures a customer. Aster’s general counsel hires outside lawyer Lee to provide legal advice and prepare for the anticipated litigation. At Lee’s request, employee Dana meets with Lee alone and describes what Dana saw before the failure. Lee writes notes containing Dana’s factual account and Lee’s impressions about possible defenses. Lee does not disclose the interview or notes to anyone outside the legal team.

Treatment Communications and the Federal Line: Psychotherapy Is Not Doctor Confidentiality

Federal law generally does not recognize a general physician-patient evidentiary privilege. A doctor’s ethical duty of confidentiality is not automatically an evidentiary privilege. In an ordinary federal-question case, a physician may be required to testify about a patient’s treatment, diagnosis, observations, and records unless another doctrine independently applies.

FRE 501 can direct a federal court to apply state privilege law when state law supplies the rule of decision, but state physician privileges are not imported into a federal-law analysis merely because the evidence concerns medical treatment. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the safe starting point is: no general federal physician-patient privilege.

Federal common law does recognize a psychotherapist-patient privilege through FRE 501. It protects confidential communications between a patient and a licensed psychotherapist, including a psychiatrist, psychologist, or qualifying licensed clinical social worker, made in the course of diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional condition. Persons reasonably necessary to provide treatment may be present without destroying confidentiality.

The privilege requires:

1. A communication, not merely an underlying fact or physical condition.
2. A patient and a covered psychotherapist or necessary treatment representative.
3. A purpose of diagnosis or treatment.
4. An expectation that the communication would remain confidential.
5. No waiver or applicable limitation.

The patient holds the privilege, and the psychotherapist may assert it for the patient. The privilege protects treatment communications; it does not automatically protect every medical record, observation, or fact concerning the patient’s mental condition. A therapist’s observation that a patient appeared disoriented is not necessarily the patient’s privileged communication. A patient’s statement explaining symptoms made for treatment ordinarily is.

The federal psychotherapist privilege does not use an automatic balancing test under which a court simply weighs usefulness against privacy. Instead, apply the elements and then examine waiver and recognized limits. A patient may waive the privilege by voluntarily disclosing the substance of treatment communications. A patient who affirmatively places a mental condition at issue-such as by claiming damages for a specific psychological condition and relying on that condition-may lose the ability to use the privilege as a shield against relevant treatment evidence. Mere mention of emotional upset is not automatically the same as placing a diagnosed condition in issue.

Confidentiality also fails when the patient knows the evaluation is being conducted for disclosure to a court, an opposing party, or an insurer rather than for confidential treatment. A forensic evaluator asked to prepare a report for litigation is not automatically functioning as the patient’s treating psychotherapist. Ask what the patient and evaluator understood the purpose of the encounter to be.

High-Yield Points - ⚡ Biggest Takeaways

A willing spouse can testify; spousal immunity belongs only to the witness-spouse in criminal proceedings. Marital communications require confidential marital speech; attorney-client privilege never converts underlying facts into protected facts. Work product requires anticipated litigation; ordinary factual material needs substantial need and no equivalent before discovery. Federal law generally lacks physician privilege but recognizes confidential psychotherapist treatment communications.