1. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL 58 N.Y.2d 368, 448 N.E.2d 121 (1983) Case Brief

2. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL PURPOSE: Confidentiality does not extend to third parties in the law office during disclosures.

3. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL CAUSE OF ACTION: Murder (appeal from a conviction of murder in the second degree). The cause of action is not indicated in the excerpt found in the text.

4. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL FACTS: Mitchell was under indictment for the stabbing death of his girlfriend and went out one night for a “last fling,” picked up a girl in a bar and took her to a hotel room, ultimately stabbing her to death (or so the jury concluded). When he woke up to find the girl dead, he went to his attorney’s office in an agitated state and rambled on about his previous night to two legal secretaries in the reception area. (continued)

5. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL FACTS (continued): Neither were employees of Lapine, his attorney, whose secretary then arrived and he made further disclosures to her in the presence of the other secretaries. Attorney Lapine then arrived and following their private discussion, Lapine called the police, who went to the hotel room and found the body.

6. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL ISSUE: Whether statements made to unknown women in the common reception area of law offices are protected by lawyer/client privilege.

7. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL HOLDING: No. Not privileged.

8. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL REASONING: Mitchell’s statements were not made to an employee of his attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Lapine’s secretary was the last woman in the office to hear defendant’s inculpatory statements and even if statements made to her at the time could have been privileged, the privilege was lost because of the prior publication to nonemployees and the utterance of the statements to Pope-Johnson in front of the nonemployees.

9. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL AFTERTHOUGHT: Although the court did not reach the question as to whether Lapine was retained in the matter, this might be an interesting question to discuss in class.