united-states attorney-client-privilege
Attorney-Client Privilege after disbarment
<p>Suppose Amy was a lawyer, and then was disbarred. Next, she conceals her disbarment, and advertises as a lawyer. Barbara now hires Amy as her lawyer, completely unaware of Amy's disbarment. Barbara and Amy have some written communication about a case that Barbara is involved in.</p>
<p>Next, it comes to light that Amy has been disbarred, and was breaking the law by working as a lawyer. Can the communications between Barbara and Amy be subpoenaed, or are they protected by Attorney-Client privilege?</p>
<p>I'm interested in US law, any state.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Can the communications between Barbara and Amy be subpoenaed, or are they protected by Attorney-Client privilege?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The communications remain protected by the attorney-client privilege.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20130116023" rel="noreferrer"><em>People Ex Rel. Herrera v. Stender</em>, 212 Cal.App.4th 614 (2012)</a> describes a pattern of unauthorized practice of law by a former lawyer who allegedly kept giving legal advice without informing his clients about his disbarment. The opinion nowhere suggests that their attorney-client privilege was invalidated or waived. Quite the contrary. For instance, the court reiterates the intent to &quot;<em>protect individuals in need of legal advice from seeking assistance from Martin R. Guajardo in the mistaken belief that he is a licensed attorney</em>&quot;, <em>Id. at 628</em>. That intent is palpable also in the mention of &quot;<em>ad hoc measures from the court's equitable arsenal</em>&quot; to preserve the clients' privilege, <em>Id. at 647, 650</em> (quotation marks omitted, brackets added).</p>
<p>See also <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/2000394219f3d1751372" rel="noreferrer"><em>In Re Grand Jury Proceedings</em>, 219F.3d 175, 183 (2000)</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[W]hen waiver occurs as a result of inadvertent [...] disclosure,
courts have limited the scope of that waiver based on the
circumstances involved and overall fairness.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(citations omitted). Your premise that Amy concealed her disbarment and made intentional misrepresentations about being authorized to practice law implies that Barbara's disclosures to Amy were inadvertent.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20220617746" rel="noreferrer"><em>U.S. v. Warburg Pincus LLC</em>, U.S. Dist. Court, Vermont (June 2022)</a> reflects that &quot;<em>the attorney-client privilege can remain intact despite a one-time leak of privileged information</em>&quot; (citing cases). A multiplicity of communications between Amy and Barbara seems unlike to defeat Barbara's privilege as long as the premise of Barbara's [reasonable] unawareness holds.</p>
