Spectrum Systems International Corp. v. Chemical Bank
New York Court of Appeals
581 N.E.2d 1055 (1991)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Chemical Bank (Chemical) (defendant) retained an outside law firm to investigate possible fraud by its employees and outside vendors, including Spectrum Systems International Corp. (Spectrum) (plaintiff). The law firm interviewed former and current Chemical employees and Spectrum representatives, and in a letter report to Chemical’s vice-chairman/senior legal officer on which general counsel was copied, outlined its findings and opined on the merits of a possible claim against Spectrum. Thereafter, Spectrum sued Chemical to recover fees for consulting services and demanded disclosure of the report. Chemical sought a protective order, claiming that the report was protected by the attorney-client privilege. The supreme court denied Chemical’s motion for a protective order, holding that communicating the results of an independent investigation to an attorney does not make it privileged. The appellate division likewise rejected Chemical’s claim of privilege, reasoning that the report provided business rather than legal advice, did not reach a conclusion, was not focused on impending litigation, and did not contain legal research. The appellate division granted Chemical leave to appeal, certifying the question of whether its order was proper.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kaye, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
