In McNamee v. Clemens, No. 09-cv-01647 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2013), the court held that disclosures by Roger Clemens’ legal team to public relations agents were not protected by the attorney-client privilege. In this case, McNamee alleged that Clemens defamed McNamee by accusing him of lying and manufacturing evidence regarding Clemens’ alleged use of performance enhancing drugs. Following the release of the Mitchell Report a year earlier, which included statements attributed to McNamee, Clemens’ legal team engaged public relations agents to provide consulting services “with respect to media relations advice and counsel.” McNamee moved to compel production of communications with the PR agents, and Clemens asserted attorney-client privilege and work product. The court held that Clemens waived any applicable privilege by failing to submit a privilege log that sufficiently described the bases for the asserted privileges and protections. Moreover, even if the log had been sufficient, the communications would not have been protected. The court held that it is not sufficient that communications with a PR firm “prove important to an attorney’s legal advice to a client.” Instead, the “critical inquiry” is whether the communications with the person assisting the attorney were made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, and the communications themselves were primarily or predominantly of a legal character. The court found that Clemens did not demonstrate that the communications with the PR agents involved anything other than standard public relations or agent services, or that the communications were necessary so that Clemens’ counsel could provide Clemens with legal advice.