Triplett asserts that he was never advised by his attorney that if he had become indigent and could not pay the court costs or his lawyer, he could file a pauper's affidavit and proceed with the appeal in form pauperis. The State contends that in Bennett v. State, 293 So.2d 1, 4 (Miss. 1974), we took the position that there is no constitutional obligation to inform a convicted defendant represented by retained counsel at his trial that he may appeal in forma pauperis. Indeed this is what Bennett expresses.
Moreover, the general rule, which Mississippi appears to follow, is that a waiver of the privilege is deemed to encompass all information related to that topic. SeeBennett v. State, 293 So.2d 1, 4 (Miss.1974), overruled on other grounds byTriplett v. State, 579 So.2d 555 (Miss.1991) (upon waiver of the privilege, the client " and his attorney may then be fully examined in relation thereto." ), quoted inJackson Medical Clinic for Women, P.A. v. Moore, 836 So.2d. at 771.
Id. In Bennett v. State, 293 So.2d 1 (Miss. 1974), overruled on other grounds byTriplett v. State, 579 So.2d 555 (Miss. 1991), we cited the rule concerning "effective" waiver of the privilege by a client: While a client does not lose the benefit of the privilege where he is compelled, against his protest, to disclose confidential statements, if he voluntarily introduces testimony relating to such communications, his privilege may not thereafter be asserted.
Hewes v. Langston , 853 So.2d 1237, 1264 (Miss. 2003) ; see, e.g. , Bennett v. State , 293 So.2d 1, 5 (Miss. 1974) (client waived privilege by testifying to his counsel's advice at trial), overruled on other grounds by Triplett v. State , 579 So.2d 555, 559 (Miss. 1991), but cited in Jackson Med. , 836 So.2d at 771. And to prevent selective or misleading disclosures, fairness dictates that the waiver extend to related subject matter.
The representation terminated after trial, and counsel did not file an appeal. Bennett's petition for writ of error coram nobis was denied by the trial court, and the denial affirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court. Bennett v. State, 293 So.2d 1 (Miss. 1974). Bennett then filed a federal petition for habeas corpus contending that he was denied an appeal by the state because he was indigent and ignorant of the appellate process.
"[T]he general rule, which Mississippi appears to follow, is that a waiver of the privilege is deemed to encompass all information related to that topic." Baptist Health v. Bancorpsouth Ins. Servs., Inc., 270 F.R.D. 268, 273 (N.D. Miss. 2010) (citing Bennett v. State, 293 So. 2d 1, 4 (Miss. 1974)). "'The waiver doctrine entails the result not only of the claim for the particular document, but for any other document relating to the same subject matter.'"
Additionally,"the general rule, which Mississippi appears to follow, is that a waiver of the privilege is deemed to encompass all information related to that topic." Baptist Health v. Bancorpsouth Ins. Servcs., Inc., 270 F.R.D. 268, 273 (N.D. Miss. 2010) (citing Bennett v. State, 293 So. 2d 1, 4 (Miss. 1974)). "'The waiver doctrine entails the results not only of the claim for the particular document, but for any other document relating to the same subject matter.'"
"[T]he general rule, which Mississippi appears to follow, is that a waiver of the privilege is deemed to encompass all information related to that topic." Baptist Health v. Bancorpsouth Ins. Servcs., Inc., 270 F.R.D. 268, 273 (N.D. Miss. 2010) (citing Bennett v. State, 293 So. 2d 1, 4 (Miss. 1974)). Allstate seeks to use the February 19, 2013, coverage opinion to advance an advice-of-counsel defense but also seeks to invoke the attorney-client privilege to deny Plaintiff access to additional information that could provide important context for understanding the coverage opinion.
The Court is mindful of one of the well-established tenets relating to the attorney-client privilege which holds that just as the client alone may hold and invoke the privilege, only he may waive it. See Bennett v. State, 293 So.2d 1, 5 (Miss.1974); Caraway & Currie, Privileges 48 Miss.L.J. 989, 1028-31 (1977). For purposes of the following discussion, however, the Court indulges in the necessary presumption that Defendant's counsel possessed the authority to represent, and consequently bind, his client to the actions counsel took while conducting the litigation and endeavoring to advance his client's interest.
This Court has held that "the privilege is only a one-way street, for it belongs to the client only . . . [and] . . . [o]nly the client may invoke the privilege." Barnes v. State, 460 So.2d 126, 131 (Miss. 1984) (citing Bennett v. State, 293 So.2d 1, 5 (Miss. 1974); James v. State, 65 Miss. 179, 183, 3 So. 379, 380 (1887); Caraway Currie, Privileges, 48 Miss. L.J. 989, 1028-31 (1977)). (See In re: Grand JurySubpoena, 220 F.3d 406, 408 (5th Cir. 2000).