Communications between a client and a lawyer for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice are generally confidential and neither the client nor the lawyer can be compelled to disclose them. The protection that applies to such communications is called the "attorney-client privilege." The rationale behind the attorney-client privilege is to ensure that clients are able to tell their lawyers all of the facts relevant to the advice the client seeks, no matter how embarrassing or damaging those facts might be, to ensure that the client is able to obtain the best possible legal advice and to enable the lawyer to provide advice that is tailored to the client's specific situation.
Cases often turn on the scope of an exception. Recently the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clarified the "sharply limited" scope of the derivative attorney-client privilege, an exception to the basic rule that disclosure of otherwise privileged communications waives the client's right to prevent disclosure of those communications to third parties, whether in litigation or otherwise - even if that disclosure proves fatal to the client's case. See DaRosa v. City of New Bedford, 471 Mass. 446, 463 (2015). The SJC recognized that exception in a 2009 decision, holding that a third party's involvement in otherwise privileged communications would not waive that privilege where "the [third party's] presence is 'necessary' for the 'effective consultation' between client and attorney" such as where the third party's "role is to clarify or facilitate communications between attorney and client." Comm'r of Rev. v. Comcast Corp., 453 Mass. 293, 307-08 (2009).
A Massachusetts Superior Court judge recently ruled that, when ABC Corporation merged with and acquired XYZ Corporation, ABC Corporation held XYZ Corporation's attorney-client privilege over pre-merger communications with counsel, even when those communications related to the merger itself. The decision is captioned Novack v. Raytheon Co., 2014 WL 7506205 (Oct. 24, 2014).