Dyson v. Hempe


140 Wis. 2d 792, 413 N.W.2d 379 (WI Ct. App., 1987)


(a)  The litigation exception to the physician-patient privilege does not apply to a legal malpractice case under sec. 905.04(4)(c), Stats.  (b) The defendants may testify, without the consent of Dyson, to communications with her, to defend against her malpractice charges. However, they may not, over her assertion of the lawyer-client privilege, use in defense her testimony or the testimony of attorneys consulted by her as to confidential communications between them.  ( c)  The name of any other lawyer Dyson consulted is a fact, not a communication and is not protected confidential communication. Dyson can be compelled to reveal the names of other attorneys consulted.  (d)  Lawyer-client privilege does not attach to communications between the client and the lawyer respecting fees.

[ Full Opinion ]