O.C. judge rebukes firm over privileged emails, weighs disqualification

An Orange County Superior Court judge said he would likely order Global Legal Law Firm to track down and destroy a cache of attorney-client privileged documents it got from a former insider in a business dispute, blasting the firm for breaching its ethical duties by staying silent after opposing counsel asserted privilege.

In a tentative ruling, Judge Scott A. Steiner said he believed the documents were improperly disclosed and should never have been reviewed. He stopped short of immediately disqualifying the firm from the underlying commercial dispute but requested further briefing on whether Global Legal's review created a reasonable probability the materials could benefit its client at trial. He said he would hold a hearing before determining whether the firm should be removed from the case. National Payment Systems LLC vs. Cardflex, Inc., 30-2021-01205947-CU-BC-NJC, (O.C. Super., Ct., filed June 04, 2021)

Attorneys for the plaintiff are Steven A. Heath of the Beverly Hills firm Heath Steinbeck LLP and Oliver D. Griffin of Griffin Partners LLP in Philadelphia. Representing the defendant is James C. Huber, of the San Diego-based Global Legal Law Firm. Huber was unavailable for comment.

"We are confident that the facts support our analysis and conclusion, and we look forward to a fair and just ruling at the next hearing," Heath said in an email to the Daily Journal.

The fight stems from competing claims over which Cardflex entity, doing business as Cliq, Global Legal represents in cross-litigation with Boom Commerce. The flashpoint is a packet of six privileged documents--five emails from 2017 and 2018 and a draft settlement term sheet--passed to the firm by Jon Beckman, a former member of Eventus, Boom's parent company.

After a 2021 mediation, Beckman sold his ownership stake for $11.75 million and certain digital assets, signing an Equity Interest Redemption Agreement that included a confidentiality clause. Global Legal now represents him in separate matters against Boom. Neither he nor the firm disclosed that they had the privileged materials, according to Steiner's tentative ruling.

Boom's attorneys first learned of the disclosure during a 2024 trial in an unrelated case, when Cliq's counsel tried to introduce one of the emails. Boom asserted privilege, and the court excluded it. Global Legal still did not reveal it possessed more documents.

The issue resurfaced a year later during a deposition in the current case, when another privileged email emerged. Boom again asserted privilege, and a review of Cliq's trial exhibit list revealed six documents Boom claimed were protected. Four of the emails had been forwarded in 2023 by Beckman's former assistant to his personal account--two years after he left Eventus.

Boom submitted a privilege log for all six documents. The court found the log sufficient to make a prima facie showing and shifted the burden to Cliq, which argued that Boom's general counsel had not been acting as a lawyer; that ownership of the emails passed to Beckman; that Boom waived privilege by not producing a log earlier; and that the motion was untimely. The court rejected each argument.

"The attorney-client privilege has been a hallmark of Anglo-American jurisprudence for almost 400 years. Its fundamental purpose is to safeguard the confidential relationship between clients and their attorneys so as to promote full and open discussion of the facts and tactics surrounding individual legal matters," Steiner wrote.

In his tentative ruling, he noted the redemption agreement was clear: Beckman received an email address and domain, not the underlying messages. On waiver, he relied on precedent holding that failure to produce a privilege log does not waive a timely asserted privilege. And on timeliness, he found Boom acted quickly after learning of the disclosure. Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court, 242 Cal. App. 4th 1116, 195 Cal. Rptr. 3d 694 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).

The central dispute became whether Global Legal had to follow the State Fund protocol, which requires lawyers who receive documents that reasonably appear privileged to stop reading, notify the privilege holder, and seek court guidance if necessary. Cliq argued the rule applies only to inadvertent disclosures, but the court disagreed. Sundholm v. Hollywood Foreign Press Assn., 99 Cal. App. 5th 1330, 318 Cal. Rptr. 3d 669 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)

Steiner noted that attorney-client privilege may be waived, but only by the holder of the privilege and an attorney has an obligation not only to protect his client's interests but also to respect the legitimate interests of fellow members of the bar, the judiciary, and the administration of justice.

Once Boom asserted privilege in September 2024, the judge found Global Legal was on notice. Its failure to disclose the issue and seek direction violated the State Fund rule.

The court cited recent appellate guidance that disqualification may follow a State Fund violation when other factors support it. A key question is whether counsel obtained information likely to be used at trial. Global Legal's designation of all six documents as trial exhibits suggested that, though Cliq later told the court it had removed them from the list. Johnson v. Department of Transportation, 109 Cal. App. 5th 917 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)

The final ruling on disqualification is pending after Wednesday's hearing was continued until Jan. 6.