In Bousamra v. Excela Health, 167 A.3d 728 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017) (No. 1637 WDA 2015), the court considered whether, under Pennsylvania law, the attorney-client privilege applied to communications with a public relations consultant. Two cardiologists brought this action against their former employer, Excela, alleging that Excela acted tortiously by conducting peer review of their work in bad faith and engaging in a campaign to prevent them from competing at a rival hospital by publicly announcing at a press conference that the doctors had performed medically unnecessary procedures. Prior to the press conference, Excela engaged an outside public relations consultant, Cate. Excela told Cate that legal issues prevented public disclosure of the names of the doctors. The next day, outside counsel provided advice to Excela’s General Counsel in an email, which the GC forwarded to Cate and to Excela management level employees. Four days later, Excela announced the doctors’ names at the press conference. Plaintiffs sought discovery of outside counsel’s email, arguing that Excela waived privilege by disclosing it to Cate. The trial court agreed, and the appellate court affirmed, identifying several factors indicating that Cate did not provide or assist counsel to provide legal advice and, therefore, Cate was not a privileged agent of counsel. Among other things, Cate had been providing business-related media advice to Excela for years; the communication from the GC to Cate did not solicit advice that would assist counsel to provide legal advice to Excela; Cate in fact did not provide such advice to Excela; Cate testified that her sole concern was Excela’s reputation; and the GC did not indicate that he consulted Cate about the legal implications of identifying the doctors’ names. Under these circumstances, the court held that Cate’s work was not legal in nature, and disclosure to Cate waived the attorney-client privilege.