Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 51 > Issue 4 (1953)
EVIDENCE-PRIVILEGE-EXTENSION OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTITIONERS
In an action for rescission for transfer of patent rights, for breach of warranty of title and fraud, a pretrial examination of defendant's agent, as one familiar with facts concerning the transfer, was ordered by the court. Defendant objected to certain questions on the ground that the agent was in the status of attorney to defendant and that the matters in question were confidential communications protected from disclosure by the common law and statutory attorney-client privilege. The agent was a patent agent duly registered and authorized to practice as such before the United States Patent Office, but was not admitted to practice as an attorney in any state or federal court. Held, objections overruled. A patent agent is not an attorney within the meaning of the rule against disclosure of privileged communications. Kent Jewelry Corp. v. Kiefer, (N.Y. 1952) 113 N.Y.S. (2d) 12.
Richard W. Pogue S.Ed.,
EVIDENCE-PRIVILEGE-EXTENSION OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTITIONERS,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol51/iss4/16
Common Law Commons, Evidence Commons, Legal Profession Commons