On May 23, 2024, Justice Schecter of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Roam Capital, Inc. v. Asia Alternatives Mgt. LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op. 31811(U), holding that a party waived privilege by including family members on communications, explaining:
The privilege was waived when Mr. Stiernon forwarded privileged attorney-client and work product communications to his immediate family members for their input and advice—including his wife (Alexa Helms), mother (Clemencia Caro), father (Alex
Stiernon), and stepfather (Augusto Jimenez, himself a lawyer). AA agrees that the 33 emails only between Mr. Stiernon and his wife that were sent after they were married need not be produced. However, ROAM has not explained why the inclusion of any of his other family members on privileged communications was necessary for the provision of legal advice. The conclusory explanations in Stiernon’s affidavit are insufficient. Stiernon does not identify any specific communication in which he sought his stepfather’s legal advice. Nor did he provide any meaningful explanation about the necessity of his parents’ inclusion.There is no authority holding that a general desire to keep family members up to speed on litigation does not waive privilege. Since the court lacks a proper showing that these family members were necessary for the provision of legal advice, the privilege was waived. To be sure, even if there was no third-party waiver, some of the documents in this category clearly are not privileged, such as an email that merely forwarded a retainer agreement.
Moreover, there is no merit in ROAM’s recent argument that the work product standard should apply to documents that were only labeled as attorney-client privileged on its April 15, 2024 log. While the court appreciates ROAM’s desire to avoid waiver by now trying to label attorney-client communications as work product to avail itself of the broader protections of such a designation, ROAM’s brief does not identify any actual attorney work product. In fact, its brief only addresses three of the documents, all of which are attorney client communications, not work product. The court assumes ROAM would have picked its best examples so there is no reason to infer that these categories of withheld documents include other work product that is immune from disclosure. Thus, ROAM’s attempt to claim work product protection over these communications is unavailing.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).