The Privileged Memo in the Expert Disclosure
Priya represents a homeowner in a construction-defect suit against a general contractor in Denver District Court. Opposing counsel’s paralegal emails Priya a 42-page PDF labeled “Expert Disclosures.” The PDF contains an embedded tab marked “PRIVILEGED - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT.” The tab includes defense counsel’s memo assessing weaknesses in the contractor’s case and a settlement authority of $425,000. Priya opens the file, reads the memo, and does not notify opposing counsel. Two weeks later, at the defense expert’s deposition, Priya asks: “Didn’t defense counsel tell you the settlement value was $425,000 and that the delay claim was weak?” Defense counsel objects, demands that Priya stop, and asks the court for a protective order and sanctions. Priya responds that the document “was sent to me” and that she has no obligation to return it. The court asks for simultaneous briefs on the professional-responsibility and privilege issues.
1. Did Priya violate Colo. RPC 4.4(b) and related duties when she read and used the memo? Explain the trigger and the required response.
Read the worked answer
Yes. Colo. RPC 4.4(b) provides that a lawyer who receives a document or electronically stored information relating to the representation and knows or reasonably should know that it was inadvertently sent must promptly notify the sender. The trigger is objective: a lawyer need not have actual certainty. The “PRIVILEGED - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT” tab, the settlement authority, and the internal defense memo made it unreasonable for Priya to believe the production was intentional. A 42-page disclosure with an embedded privileged tab is a classic inadvertent-production signal.
Once she knew or should have known, Priya was required to promptly notify defense counsel. The rule does not expressly require return of the document, but the comment and professional-duty cases make clear that a lawyer should not exploit an inadvertently produced document. Reading it after the warning signs and then using it at a deposition is inconsistent with 4.4(b) and with the duty of candor and fairness under Colo. RPC 3.4 and 8.4(d). Her statement that “it was sent to me” does not cure the problem; receipt is not authorization to use privileged material.
The proper response would have been to stop reviewing, notify opposing counsel immediately, preserve the document, and seek court guidance before using it. Whether the document must be returned or sequestered is often addressed by the court, but the professional obligation to notify is not optional.
2. Assume the memo is privileged. Does the inadvertent production waive the privilege, and may the court allow Priya to use it?
Read the worked answer
Inadvertent production does not automatically waive privilege, but it can waive it if the producing party was not reasonably careful or did not promptly object. Colorado courts apply a totality-of-the-circumstances approach, considering the reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent disclosure, the time taken to rectify the error, the scope of discovery, the extent of disclosure, and the overriding interest of fairness. The fact that the memo was embedded in a disclosure production, rather than disclosed in a privileged-log review, cuts against the contractor; so does defense counsel’s failure to assert privilege until the deposition. On the other hand, prompt objection after learning of the use and the clearly marked “PRIVILEGED” tab cut in favor of the contractor.
The court has discretion. It may find waiver as to the memo, may order the memo returned and preclude use, or may allow limited use for impeachment if fairness requires. Priya should not assume that production equals waiver. Her professional-duty problem exists independently of the evidence ruling: even if the court ultimately allows use, she violated 4.4(b) by failing to notify the sender and by exploiting an obviously inadvertent disclosure. The safer course is to seek a ruling before using the material, not to spring it at a deposition.
3. What should Priya do now, and what sanctions or discipline are realistic?
Read the worked answer
Priya should immediately stop using the memo, preserve it and the transmittal email, notify defense counsel in writing, and disclose the issue to the court. She should not delete or alter anything. She should be prepared to return the privileged tab or submit it for in camera review. She should also correct any deposition testimony or argument that relied on the memo. If she previously told the court that she had no obligation to return it, she should clarify her position rather than defend an untenable one.
Sanctions may include an order precluding use of the memo, a protective order, attorney fees for the deposition and motion, and possibly evidence sanctions. Discipline could range from a private admonition or public censure to suspension if the conduct was knowing and caused significant harm. The aggravating facts are that the privileged nature was obvious and she used the material after reading it. Mitigating facts would include prompt correction, lack of prior discipline, and cooperation with OARC. Her best course is candid correction, not continued reliance on “it was sent to me.”