California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gionis, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 456, 892 P.2d 1199, 9 Cal.4th 1196 (Cal. 1995):
While it is firmly established that the privilege protects confidential communications made during initial consultations with an attorney, neither the relevant statutory provisions nor California decisional law suggests that the privilege extends to disclosures made after the attorney refuses to undertake representation. Indeed, such a proposition seems to stand in direct contradiction to one older decision, Finnell v. Finnell (1909) 156 Cal. 589, 105 P. 740. In that case, an attorney was permitted to testify, over a defendant's objection, concerning a conversation in which the attorney expressed a brief legal opinion in reply to a question. There we held that the defendant's claim of attorney-client privilege was properly rejected, noting that the attorney "further said that he was not anybody's attorney in the [9 Cal.4th 1211] matter." (156 Cal. at p. 602, 105 P. 740.) Nonetheless, while that decision is apposite, we hesitate to find it dispositive because its facts indicate that an unauthorized third person was present when the challenged remarks were made, and the holding did not specify the grounds for rejection of the privilege. (See ibid.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.