we overrule appellants’ third appellate issue. F. Pre-Publication Review — Fifth Amended Petition Paragraph 21 As noted above, in cause number 14-99-00026-CV, this Court reversed and rendered judgment for the media defendants on Randolph and Kelley’s defamation claims. Because this Court held that a defamation claim will not lie against the media defendants, a fortiori that same claim could not lie against the attorneys who advised them. Even if we ignore this court’s June 8, 2000 opinion in cause number 14-99-00026-CV, there is simply no basis in law for a suit against the attorneys representing the media defendants for their pre-publication discussions of the allegedly defamatory news reports. See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981) (<HOLDING>); see also Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones &
holding that attorneyclient privilege could apply to communications of legal advice between nonlawyer members of management and human resources department if the communication was made in confidence for the primary purpose of obtaining legal advice holding that an invocation of the advice of counsel defense waives the attorneyclient privilege holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege holding that an employees communications to general counsel requesting legal advice remained confidential even though they were distributed to other employees involved in the matter because such limited dissemination does not amount to a breach of confidentiality in the corporate attorneyclient context holding communications between corporate counsel and corporations employees made for the purpose of rendering legal advice protected by attorneyclient privilege