Township Council Meeting — Agenda

recognition of the privileged communication between attorney and client rests in the suppression of the truth[,] the privilege should be strictly construed in accordance with its object. The privilege is an anomaly and ought not to be extended." Id. at 150-51 (quoting In re Selser, 15 N.J. 393, 405-06 (1954)). Thus, "[t]he determination whether a communication between a client and an attorney is protected must be made 'on the basis of the purposes for which the privilege exists and the reasons for its assertion in the context of the particular case.'" In re Custodian of Recs., Crim. Div. Manager, 420 N.J. Super. 182, 187 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting Fellerman v. Bradley, 99 N.J. 493, 502 (1985)). It is well-established "that the [attorney-client] privilege is fully applicable to communications between a public body and an attorney retained to represent it." Paff, 412 N.J. Super. at 152 (alteration in original) (quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum Served by Sussex Cnty., 241 N.J. Super. 18, 28 (App. Div. 1989)). Further, the privilege is not limited to communications made directly between an attorney and client; the privilege "also extends to 'the necessary intermediaries and agents through whom the communications are made.'" Tractenberg, 416 N.J. Super. at 376 (State v. Kociolek, 23 N.J. 400, 413 (1957)). "[A] client's privileged communications are 'permanently protected from disclosure by [itself], or the legal advisor, or by the A-2287-19 14 Pa014