In Palmer v. Superior Court, 180 Cal. Rptr. 3d 620 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (No. B255182), a California appellate court upheld the attorney-client privilege regarding intra-law firm communications concerning disputes with current clients, and rejected the “fiduciary” or “current client” exceptions to the privilege.  Almost immediately after hiring defendant law firm, plaintiff sent two emails expressing dissatisfaction with the firm’s billing and representation.  While continuing to represent plaintiff, the lawyers working on the matter consulted the firm’s: (1)  General Counsel; and (2) Claims Counsel.  Plaintiff moved to compel disclosure of these communications in the subsequent malpractice action, arguing that the attorney-client privilege does not apply to internal law firm communications that occur while the representation is ongoing.  The court denied discovery of the communications. The court explained that an attorney who consults another attorney in the same firm for the purpose of securing legal advice may establish an attorney-client relationship.  Although some courts have applied a “fiduciary” or “current client” exception to the privilege, the court noted that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, Georgia, and Oregon have recently rejected application of these exceptions.  The court held that the attorney-client privilege is a legislative creation and it was not at liberty to adopt these exceptions.  The firm was required to demonstrate that there was a “genuine” intra-firm attorney-client relationship with regard to communications concerning a potential malpractice claim, by meeting four prerequisites:  (1) the law firm must designate an attorney to act as in-house counsel; (2) in-house counsel must not have performed any work for the client who has threatened litigation; (3) the time spent on the in-house counsel communications may not be billed to the client; and (4) the communications must have been made and kept in confidence.  The court held that the firm had established each of the prerequisites and denied plaintiff’s motion to compel.