Attorney-client privilege: decedent's estates.
Summary
(1) Under existing law, a client of a lawyer has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between the client and lawyer if the privilege is claimed by the holder of the privilege, a person who is authorized to claim the privilege by the holder, or the person who was the lawyer at the time of the confidential communication. However, the lawyer may not claim the privilege if there is no holder of the privilege in existence or if he or she is otherwise instructed by a person authorized to permit disclosure. "Holder of the privilege" is defined for purposes of these provisions to include the client, a guardian or conservator of the client, the personal representative of the client if the client is dead, and a successor, assign, trustee in dissolution, or any similar representative of a firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, or public entity that is no longer in existence. This bill would clarify that the personal representative of a client that is dead, and who is appointed for purposes of subsequent estate administration pursuant to the provisions described in (3) below, is a holder of the privilege. (2) Under existing law, there is no lawyer-client privilege as to a communication relevant to an issue between parties all of whom claim through a deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or intestate succession or by inter vivos transaction. This bill would clarify that this exception also applies when any of the parties claims under a nonprobate transfer. (3) Under existing law, if subsequent administration of an estate is necessary after the personal representative has been discharged either because other property is discovered, or disclosure is sought of a communication that is deemed privileged in the absence of a waiver by a personal representative, as specified, or because it becomes necessary or proper for any other cause, the court is required to appoint as personal representative the person entitled to appointment and to give notice of the hearing of the appointment to the person who served as personal representative at the time of the order of discharge and to other interested persons, as specified. Existing law requires the appointed personal representative to be a holder of the decedent's lawyer-client privilege, as specified. This bill would delete the requirement that the appointed personal representative be a holder of the decedent's lawyer-client privilege. The bill also would delete the requirement that the court perform these functions when subsequent administration of an estate is necessary after the personal representative has been discharged because disclosure is sought of a communication that is deemed privileged in the absence of a waiver by a personal representative.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Jun 2009
Assembly Passage
Apr 2009
Senate Passage
Jun 2009
Signed into Law
Jun 2009
Introduced Feb 27, 2009
Signed Jun 29, 2009
Floor votes · Senate Jun 15, 2009 · Assembly Apr 27, 2009
How they voted
35–0
Passed · 4 other
Total votes 39
Jun 15, 2009
D
Democratic25
88% Yea
R
Republican14
92% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
21
Key actions
7
Committee
7
Amendments
1
Jun 29, 2009
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Jun 15, 2009
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (35-0-4)
senate
Jun 9, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (June 9).
upper
May 14, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Apr 27, 2009
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (67-0-3)
assembly
Apr 21, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (April 21).
lower
Apr 2, 2009
Lower · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Mar 27, 2009
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Mar 26, 2009
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 26, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Mar 1, 2009
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 30.
lower
Feb 27, 2009
Introduced
Introduced. To print.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Van Tran
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 1163
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 1163. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline