Plaintiff Argued That The Fees Disclosure Invaded The Attorney-Client Privilege, An Argument Rejected At Both The Trial And Appellate Levels.
In what we consider to be a very pragmatically reasoned decision, Johnson v. Rubylin, Inc., Case No. H053076 (6th Dist. Dec. 19, 2025) (published) decided that the attorney-client privilege does not support a disability plaintiff in a construction access case from objecting to disclose claimed attorney’s fees and claims for purposes of responding to a defense request for a stay and an early evaluation conference to show that the case can be resolved at an early stage for Unruh Act claims. “The [Unruh] Act contains no indication that the Legislature intended the attorney-client privilege to apply to the early evaluation conference.” (Slip Op., p. 13.) The lower court, once plaintiff objected on privilege grounds, gave plaintiff one of two options: (1) a ruling that the matter could proceed but no attorney’s fees would be recoverable, or (2) dismissal of the suit with prejudice. Plaintiff chose option 2, with the appellate court affirming this result.