Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Privileges

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

PrivilegesQuestion 1 of 20

An attorney is subpoenaed by a federal grand jury investigating a former client for tax evasion. The subpoena asks the attorney to disclose the amount the former client paid the attorney in legal fees for a prior, unrelated civil matter. The attorney moves to quash the subpoena, asserting that the fee arrangement is protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Is the court likely to quash the subpoena? Select one.

No, because information regarding client identity and fee arrangements is generally not protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Yes, because disclosing the fee amount could provide a link in the chain of evidence against the client in the tax evasion case.

Yes, because all information relating to the representation of a client is presumptively privileged.

No, because the attorney-client privilege terminates once the representation has ended.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Privileges

Practice Privileges in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Privileges, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Is the court likely to quash the subpoena? Select one.

No, because information regarding client identity and fee arrangements is generally not protected by the attorney-client privilege. (correct answer)
Yes, because disclosing the fee amount could provide a link in the chain of evidence against the client in the tax evasion case.
Yes, because all information relating to the representation of a client is presumptively privileged.
No, because the attorney-client privilege terminates once the representation has ended.

Explanation: When you encounter attorney-client privilege questions, remember that the privilege protects confidential communications between attorney and client, but has important limitations regarding basic administrative information. The court will likely deny the motion to quash because fee information and client identity are generally not privileged. The attorney-client privilege specifically protects confidential communications made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, but basic business arrangements like fee amounts are considered administrative matters outside the privilege's scope. Courts consistently hold that the fact of representation, client identity, and fee arrangements are not confidential communications requiring protection. Looking at the wrong answers: Answer B incorrectly suggests that potential evidentiary value creates privilege protection - but the privilege doesn't expand based on how damaging information might be to a client. The "link in the chain" concept doesn't apply here since fee amounts aren't privileged communications. Answer C overstates the privilege's scope dramatically - if all representation-related information were privileged, attorneys couldn't even acknowledge representing clients, which clearly isn't the law. Answer D contains a fundamental misunderstanding of privilege duration - attorney-client privilege actually survives the end of representation and even the client's death, making this backwards. Study tip: Remember the privilege covers communications content, not the business relationship itself. When you see privilege questions, distinguish between what was said (potentially privileged) versus administrative facts about the representation (generally not privileged). Fee amounts, client identity, and dates of representation typically fall outside privilege protection unless revealing them would disclose privileged communications.

Question 2

A client consults an attorney for advice on a business venture. During the meeting, the client says, "I need to get a competitor's trade secrets to make this venture profitable. I want to hire someone to break into their office. I need you to tell me what the criminal penalties are so I can decide if it's worth the risk." The attorney advises the client of the severe penalties and refuses to assist further. Later, the competitor sues the client for theft of trade secrets. The competitor's attorney deposes the client's former attorney and asks about the conversation.

Is the communication between the client and the attorney protected by the attorney-client privilege? Select one.

Yes, because the client was seeking legal advice about the consequences of future conduct.
Yes, because the attorney refused to participate in the client's plan.
No, because the client was seeking the attorney's services to aid in the commission of a future crime or fraud. (correct answer)
No, because the privilege is waived once a civil lawsuit is filed against the client regarding the subject matter of the consultation.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The crime-fraud exception removes attorney-client privilege protection for communications made in furtherance of a future crime or fraud. Here, the client was not seeking advice on how to conform his conduct to the law, but rather was seeking information to help him commit a crime (theft of trade secrets). This falls squarely within the crime-fraud exception. A is incorrect because while seeking advice about legal consequences is generally privileged, it is not when the purpose is to facilitate a crime. B is incorrect because the attorney's participation is irrelevant; the exception is triggered by the client's intent and purpose. D is incorrect as the filing of a lawsuit does not automatically waive the privilege.

Question 3

A corporation is sued by a former employee for age discrimination. In its defense, the corporation claims that its decision to terminate the employee was based on the good-faith advice of its outside counsel, who conducted an investigation and concluded the termination was lawful. The plaintiff's attorney then serves a subpoena on the outside counsel, demanding all communications and documents related to the investigation and advice given to the corporation.

What is the likely result of a motion to quash the subpoena based on attorney-client privilege? Select one.

The motion will be granted, because the communications were between an attorney and a client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.
The motion will be denied, because the corporation waived the privilege by placing the attorney's advice at issue in its defense. (correct answer)
The motion will be granted as to the attorney's advice but denied as to the underlying facts of the investigation.
The motion will be denied, because the crime-fraud exception applies when an attorney is used to facilitate a discriminatory act.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. A party waives the attorney-client privilege when it affirmatively places the privileged communication at issue in the litigation. This is often called "at-issue" waiver or "advice-of-counsel" waiver. By making its reliance on the attorney's advice a central part of its defense, the corporation cannot then use the privilege to shield those communications from scrutiny. A states the general rule for the privilege but ignores the waiver. C is incorrect because the waiver would typically cover both the advice and the communications related to the factual basis for that advice. D is incorrect because there is no evidence the attorney was consulted to facilitate a future crime or fraud; rather, the advice was sought regarding the legality of a past or present employment action.

Question 4

A driver caused a car accident that injured a passenger. The passenger's attorney sent the driver a letter demanding $100,000 to settle the claim. The driver's insurance company responded with a letter stating, "While our insured was clearly at fault for the accident, we believe your client's damages are closer to $20,000, which we hereby offer." The passenger rejected the offer and filed a lawsuit. At trial, the passenger's attorney seeks to introduce the insurance company's letter.

Is the letter admissible to prove that the driver was at fault? Select one.

No, because statements and conduct made during compromise negotiations are inadmissible to prove liability. (correct answer)
Yes, because the rule excluding settlement offers does not apply to admissions of fact made during negotiations.
Yes, because it is an admission by a party's agent.
No, because evidence of liability insurance is inadmissible to prove that a person acted negligently.

Explanation: When you encounter evidence questions involving settlement negotiations, focus on Federal Rule of Evidence 408, which protects the integrity of compromise discussions by making them inadmissible to prove liability. The insurance company's letter was clearly written in response to a settlement demand, making it part of compromise negotiations. Rule 408 excludes statements made during such negotiations when offered to prove the validity or invalidity of a disputed claim. This protection encourages parties to negotiate freely without fear that their words will be used against them at trial. The rule applies broadly to all statements made during settlement discussions, including admissions of fault. Choice A correctly identifies this rule and its application to exclude the letter. Choice B misunderstands Rule 408's scope. While there are narrow exceptions allowing factual statements from negotiations to be admitted for other purposes (like proving bias), admissions of fault during settlement talks remain inadmissible to prove liability. The rule doesn't distinguish between settlement offers and factual admissions when the purpose is proving fault. Choice C incorrectly focuses on agency law. Although the insurance company may be the driver's agent, this doesn't overcome Rule 408's protection. The rule applies regardless of who makes the statement during negotiations. Choice D references the wrong evidentiary rule. While Rule 411 prohibits using liability insurance evidence to prove negligence, that's not the primary issue here. The letter's inadmissibility stems from Rule 408's settlement negotiation privilege, not insurance evidence rules. Remember: Rule 408 broadly protects settlement communications, including admissions of fault, when offered to prove liability.

Question 5

A tax attorney is representing a client being audited by the IRS. The client is a small business owner who speaks limited English. To facilitate communication, the client brings his bilingual adult son, who is also the business's bookkeeper, to all meetings with the attorney. During one meeting, the client makes an incriminating statement about unreported income. The IRS later calls the son to testify before a grand jury about his father's statement.

Is the client's statement, made in the son's presence, protected by the attorney-client privilege? Select one.

No, because the presence of the son, a third party, destroyed the confidentiality of the communication.
No, because there is no parent-child privilege recognized in federal proceedings.
Yes, because the son's presence was necessary to facilitate communication and assist the attorney in providing legal services. (correct answer)
Yes, but only the portion of the statement that the son translated, not anything he heard directly in English.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The attorney-client privilege is not waived by the presence of a third party if that person's presence is necessary to facilitate the rendition of legal services. This includes translators, accountants, or other experts needed to help the attorney understand the client's situation. Here, the son served as both a translator and a bookkeeper, making his presence necessary for the attorney to effectively communicate with and advise the client. Therefore, the privilege remains intact. A states the general rule but ignores this important exception. B is true but irrelevant; the privilege at issue is attorney-client, not parent-child. D is an illogical distinction; the privilege covers the entire confidential communication within that facilitated meeting.

Question 6

What is the likely result of a motion to quash the subpoena based on attorney-client privilege? Select one.

The motion will be granted, because the communications were between an attorney and a client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.
The motion will be denied, because the corporation waived the privilege by placing the attorney's advice at issue in its defense. (correct answer)
The motion will be granted as to the attorney's advice but denied as to the underlying facts of the investigation.
The motion will be denied, because the crime-fraud exception applies when an attorney is used to facilitate a discriminatory act.

Question 7

A technology company is being investigated for securities fraud. As part of an internal investigation, the company's general counsel directs a junior attorney to interview several engineers about the timeline for a product release. The junior attorney prepares a detailed memorandum for the general counsel summarizing the interviews and providing her own legal analysis of the company's potential disclosure violations. The government later subpoenas this memorandum. The company objects, asserting both attorney-client privilege and work product protection.

Which doctrine provides the stronger protection for the junior attorney's legal analysis contained within the memorandum? Select one.

The attorney-client privilege, because the memorandum was an internal communication between attorneys representing the same client.
The work product doctrine, because the attorney's analysis constitutes opinion work product, which is nearly absolutely privileged. (correct answer)
Neither, because the memorandum discusses factual information obtained from non-attorney employees.
Both doctrines equally, as they provide identical scope of protection for an attorney's legal analysis.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The portion of the memorandum containing the junior attorney's legal analysis, theories, and mental impressions is considered opinion work product. This type of work product receives the highest level of protection and is discoverable only in very rare circumstances, making it nearly absolute. A is incorrect because while the memorandum might contain privileged information, the work product doctrine specifically and more strongly protects the attorney's thoughts and analysis prepared for litigation. The factual summaries of the interviews would be fact work product, which is discoverable upon a showing of substantial need. C is incorrect because the presence of factual information does not destroy the protection for the analytical portions. D is incorrect because the doctrines are not coextensive; opinion work product receives a higher level of protection than communications protected by attorney-client privilege, which is subject to more exceptions (like waiver).

Question 8

A large corporation is sued after one of its delivery trucks causes a multi-car accident. The corporation's in-house counsel is tasked with conducting an internal investigation. As part of this investigation, the counsel interviews a mechanic who works in the corporation's vehicle maintenance department. The mechanic tells the counsel that the truck involved in the accident had been reported for faulty brakes but had not yet been repaired. In a later deposition, the plaintiff's attorney asks the mechanic, "What did you tell the corporation's in-house counsel about the truck's brakes?" The corporation's attorney objects, asserting attorney-client privilege.

How is the court most likely to rule on the objection? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because the mechanic's communication was with corporate counsel for the purpose of providing legal advice to the corporation. (correct answer)
Overrule the objection, because the mechanic is a fact witness and not a member of the corporation's high-level management or control group.
Sustain the objection, but only if the counsel first gave the mechanic a warning that the interview was privileged and that the counsel represented the corporation.
Overrule the objection, because the underlying facts of the brake condition are not privileged and are discoverable from the mechanic.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. Under the rule of Upjohn v. United States, the attorney-client privilege in the corporate context extends to communications between corporate counsel and lower-level employees. The privilege applies if the communication was made for the purpose of enabling the attorney to provide legal advice to the corporation, concerned matters within the scope of the employee's duties, and the employee was aware they were being questioned for that purpose. Here, the mechanic's communication fits these criteria. B is incorrect because it applies the outdated "control group" test, which was rejected by the Supreme Court. C is incorrect because while such warnings (often called Upjohn warnings) are good practice, they are not a prerequisite for the privilege to attach to the communication itself. D is incorrect because while the plaintiff can ask the mechanic about the underlying facts (e.g., "What was the condition of the truck's brakes?"), the question asked was about the specific communication with counsel, which is privileged.

Question 9

A client hires an attorney to defend him in a patent infringement suit. During a meeting in the attorney's conference room, the client explains his defense. Unknown to either of them, a journalist in the adjacent office is able to clearly overhear the entire conversation through a thin wall. The journalist later publishes an article quoting the client's confidential statements. At trial, the opposing party calls the journalist to testify about what she overheard.

Is the journalist's testimony about the client's statements admissible over an attorney-client privilege objection? Select one.

Yes, because the communication was overheard by a third party, which destroyed its confidentiality.
Yes, because there is no journalist's privilege that would prevent her from testifying in this situation.
No, because the journalist obtained the information unlawfully, and it is therefore fruit of the poisonous tree.
No, because the client had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, and the eavesdropper was unforeseeable. (correct answer)

Explanation: Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between lawyers and clients, but a key question arises when third parties accidentally overhear these conversations. The critical test is whether the communication occurred under circumstances where confidentiality could reasonably be expected. The correct answer is D because the client had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality when speaking privately with his attorney in a conference room. The fact that an unknown journalist could eavesdrop through a thin wall was unforeseeable to both the attorney and client. Courts generally protect privilege when the parties took reasonable precautions to maintain confidentiality, even if those precautions prove inadequate due to unforeseen circumstances. Option A is wrong because mere overhearing by a third party doesn't automatically destroy privilege—the key is whether the communication was reasonably expected to be confidential. Option B misses the point entirely; this isn't about journalist's privilege (which protects reporters' sources), but about attorney-client privilege preventing the journalist from testifying about what she overheard. Option C incorrectly applies the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which applies to evidence obtained through illegal government searches, not to accidental eavesdropping by private parties. When you see attorney-client privilege questions, focus on the reasonable expectation of confidentiality rather than whether someone actually overheard the conversation. The privilege protects communications made in circumstances where privacy was reasonably expected, even if that privacy was inadvertently compromised.

Question 10

You are representing a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit. To prepare for trial, you hire an investigator to interview a non-party witness who saw the accident. The investigator takes detailed notes of the interview, which include verbatim quotes from the witness as well as the investigator's own thoughts on the witness's credibility. The defendant serves a discovery request seeking all notes from the investigator's interview. You object to the production of the notes.

What is the strongest legal basis for your objection? Select one.

The notes are protected by the attorney-client privilege because the investigator was acting as your agent.
The notes are protected by the work product doctrine because they were prepared in anticipation of litigation. (correct answer)
The notes are inadmissible as hearsay, and therefore they are not subject to discovery.
The notes are protected by the witness's right to privacy.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The work product doctrine protects materials prepared by a party or their representative (including an investigator) in anticipation of litigation. The investigator's notes clearly fall into this category. A is incorrect because the attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between an attorney and a client for the purpose of seeking legal advice; the witness is not a client. C is incorrect because the scope of discovery is broader than admissibility; information may be discoverable even if it is not admissible, as long as it is relevant and not privileged. D is incorrect as there is no recognized general privilege based on a witness's right to privacy that would protect these notes from discovery.

Question 11

Is the client's statement, made in the son's presence, protected by the attorney-client privilege? Select one.

No, because the presence of the son, a third party, destroyed the confidentiality of the communication.
No, because there is no parent-child privilege recognized in federal proceedings.
Yes, because the son's presence was necessary to facilitate communication and assist the attorney in providing legal services. (correct answer)
Yes, but only the portion of the statement that the son translated, not anything he heard directly in English.

Question 12

A driver sued a trucking company for negligence after a collision. During discovery, the trucking company's attorney inadvertently produced a privileged email in a large file transfer. The email was from the company's CEO to the attorney, stating, "Our driver admitted to me that he was texting just before the crash." The plaintiff's attorney immediately recognized the email's significance. A week later, the trucking company's attorney realized the error and, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 502, demanded the email's return. The record shows that the company's legal team used a standard keyword search protocol to screen for privilege before production.

To avoid a finding that the privilege was waived, what must the trucking company's attorney demonstrate to the court? Select one.

That the disclosure was unintentional, the holder of the privilege took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure, and the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error. (correct answer)
That the email was part of a voluminous production, and therefore some mistakes are excusable without any further showing.
That the plaintiff's attorney acted unethically by reading the email after recognizing it was likely privileged.
That there was a pre-existing "clawback" agreement between the parties that mandated the return of any inadvertently produced privileged documents.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b) sets out a three-part test to determine if an inadvertent disclosure in a federal proceeding constitutes a waiver. The disclosing party must show that (1) the disclosure was inadvertent; (2) they took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and (3) they promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error. The facts provided give the attorney a basis to argue these points. B is incorrect because the volume of production is a factor in determining reasonableness, but it is not dispositive on its own. C is incorrect because while there are ethical rules about handling inadvertently sent documents, the focus of the waiver analysis under FRE 502 is on the actions of the disclosing party. D is incorrect because a clawback agreement is helpful but not required; FRE 502(b) provides a default rule that applies even in the absence of such an agreement.

Question 13

A defendant is on trial for the assault of his spouse. The alleged assault occurred on May 1. The couple separated on June 1 and their divorce became final on August 1. The trial is in September. The prosecutor calls the defendant's ex-wife to testify that on May 15, while they were still married but separated, the defendant told her that he had assaulted her because he was angry about a financial matter. The defendant objects, asserting the marital communications privilege.

How should the court rule on the defendant's objection? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because the communication was confidential and made during a valid marriage.
Overrule the objection, because the privilege does not apply when the parties are separated at the time of the communication.
Sustain the objection, because the defendant can prevent his ex-spouse from testifying about any matter that occurred during the marriage.
Overrule the objection, because there is an exception to the privilege for cases in which one spouse is charged with a crime against the other. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. Both the spousal testimonial immunity and the marital communications privilege have an exception for criminal proceedings in which one spouse is charged with a crime against the other. Because the defendant is on trial for assaulting his spouse, the marital communications privilege does not apply to any communications related to that crime. A is incorrect because it ignores this critical exception. B is incorrect because the privilege generally applies until the marriage is legally dissolved, even if the parties are separated. C incorrectly describes the spousal testimonial immunity (which ends at divorce) and ignores the exception applicable to both privileges.

Question 14

What is the strongest legal basis for your objection? Select one.

The notes are protected by the attorney-client privilege because the investigator was acting as your agent.
The notes are protected by the work product doctrine because they were prepared in anticipation of litigation. (correct answer)
The notes are inadmissible as hearsay, and therefore they are not subject to discovery.
The notes are protected by the witness's right to privacy.

Question 15

Is the journalist's testimony about the client's statements admissible over an attorney-client privilege objection? Select one.

Yes, because the communication was overheard by a third party, which destroyed its confidentiality.
Yes, because there is no journalist's privilege that would prevent her from testifying in this situation.
No, because the journalist obtained the information unlawfully, and it is therefore fruit of the poisonous tree.
No, because the client had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, and the eavesdropper was unforeseeable. (correct answer)

Question 16

Two business partners jointly retain an attorney to draft their partnership agreement. In a meeting with the attorney, both partners are present. The first partner tells the attorney that he is secretly insolvent and is using funds from another business to make his initial capital contribution. Two years later, the partnership dissolves, and the second partner sues the first partner for fraudulent inducement. The second partner subpoenas the attorney to testify about the first partner's statement regarding his insolvency.

Is the first partner's statement to the attorney protected by the attorney-client privilege in the suit between the partners? Select one.

Yes, because the statement was a confidential communication made to an attorney for the purpose of seeking legal advice.
Yes, because the second partner's presence does not waive the first partner's individual privilege against third parties.
No, because the privilege does not apply in subsequent litigation between joint clients who consulted the attorney on a common matter. (correct answer)
No, because the first partner's statement was in furtherance of a fraud, so the crime-fraud exception applies.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. When two or more clients jointly consult an attorney on a matter of common interest, their communications with the attorney are privileged as to the outside world. However, in a subsequent dispute between the joint clients, the privilege does not apply, and one client can compel the attorney's testimony regarding the communications. This is known as the joint-client or common-interest exception. A is incorrect because it ignores this specific exception. B is incorrect because while the statement is privileged against the outside world, it is not privileged between the partners themselves. D, while potentially correct as the statement was arguably in furtherance of a fraud, is not the best answer. The joint-client rule is the more direct and certain basis for admitting the testimony in a suit between the partners, regardless of whether the communication met the strict elements of the crime-fraud exception.

Question 17

A plaintiff from Texas sues a defendant from Oklahoma in federal district court in Texas. The basis for federal jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship, and the case involves a breach of contract claim governed by Texas law. During discovery, the defendant seeks to depose the plaintiff's physician about conversations the plaintiff had with the physician regarding his health after the alleged breach. Texas law recognizes a broad physician-patient privilege. Federal common law does not recognize a general physician-patient privilege, though it does recognize a psychotherapist-patient privilege.

Which law of privilege will the federal court apply to the physician's testimony? Select one.

The federal common law of privilege, because the case is being heard in a federal court.
The privilege law of Texas, because federal courts in diversity cases apply the privilege law of the state whose substantive law governs the claim. (correct answer)
The privilege law of Oklahoma, because that is the defendant's state of citizenship.
The court will balance the interests of Texas privilege law and federal common law to fashion a new rule for the case.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Federal Rule of Evidence 501 provides that in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision. Because this is a diversity case where the claim (breach of contract) is governed by Texas state law, the federal court must apply Texas's law of privilege. A is incorrect because that rule applies to cases arising under federal question jurisdiction. C is incorrect as the relevant state law is that of the forum state providing the substantive law, not the defendant's home state. D is incorrect because FRE 501 provides a clear directive, not an invitation to balance interests.

Question 18

An attorney represents a client in a complex civil lawsuit. In preparation for a key deposition, the attorney drafts a 20-page outline containing a list of questions to ask the deponent, the attorney's thoughts on expected answers, follow-up questions based on those anticipated answers, and notes linking expected testimony to specific legal theories in the case. The opposing party files a motion to compel production of the deposition outline, arguing that they have a substantial need for it because the deponent is now terminally ill and unavailable for trial.

Is the court likely to compel production of the attorney's deposition outline? Select one.

Yes, because the opposing party has shown a substantial need and the inability to obtain the equivalent information without undue hardship.
Yes, because the outline primarily contains questions for a witness, which is not privileged information.
No, because the entire outline is protected by the attorney-client privilege as it was prepared for the client's case.
No, because the outline contains the attorney's mental impressions and litigation strategy, which receive nearly absolute protection. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. The attorney's outline is a classic example of opinion work product. It contains not just facts, but the attorney's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories. Under the work product doctrine, this type of material is given nearly absolute protection and is not discoverable simply upon a showing of substantial need and undue hardship. A describes the standard for overcoming the protection for fact work product, but it is not sufficient to obtain opinion work product. B is incorrect because the outline is far more than a simple list of questions; it reveals the attorney's strategy. C is incorrect because the work product doctrine, not the attorney-client privilege, is the primary source of protection for such materials.

Question 19

Is the court likely to quash the subpoena? Select one.

No, because information regarding client identity and fee arrangements is generally not protected by the attorney-client privilege. (correct answer)
Yes, because disclosing the fee amount could provide a link in the chain of evidence against the client in the tax evasion case.
Yes, because all information relating to the representation of a client is presumptively privileged.
No, because the attorney-client privilege terminates once the representation has ended.

Question 20

How is the court most likely to rule on the objection? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because the mechanic's communication was with corporate counsel for the purpose of providing legal advice to the corporation. (correct answer)
Overrule the objection, because the mechanic is a fact witness and not a member of the corporation's high-level management or control group.
Sustain the objection, but only if the counsel first gave the mechanic a warning that the interview was privileged and that the counsel represented the corporation.
Overrule the objection, because the underlying facts of the brake condition are not privileged and are discoverable from the mechanic.