and that their communications were therefore confidential. Because of his supposed “individual” attorney-client relationship with Skrine and Scipione, Sawyer asserts that his conversations with them are privileged. The Court finds that, as an employee of Hancock, Sawyer had an obligation to aid Hancock’s in-house counsel with their internal investigation, and that Sawyer met with, and spoke to, Hancock’s lawyers not as an individual seeking personal legal advice, but as an employee fulfilling an obligation to his employer. The Court further finds that there is no evidence that 1) Sawyer consulted Hancock’s lawyers on a personal basis or 2) Hancock’s lawyers agreed to represent him on a personal basis. See In re: Grand Jury Proceedings (Jackier), 434 F.Supp. 648, 650 (E.D.Mich.1977) (<HOLDING>); In re: Standard Financial Mgmt. Carp., 77
holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege holding that an invocation of the advice of counsel defense waives the attorneyclient privilege holding that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel waives attorneyclient privilege holding that grand jury testimony of officer and inhouse counsel for corporate defendant was properly admitted as admission against the corporate defendant holding that to establish an attorneyclient privilege a corporate officer must make it clear that he is consulting the inhouse counsel on a personal basis and the counsel must accept the representation