interest, through her own counsel. She did not seek prior authorization from the University and in fact failed to consult or notify her employer in advance of copying the University on her submission, presumably simultaneously with its filing. The fact that the University did not voice an objection at the time or take affirmative steps to reverse Sharp’s unilateral action does not defeat assertion of the privilege by its true holder. We have previously found that a disclosure of a privileged communication by another party was not authorized even when the client did not object to the disclosure at the time it occurred. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 241 N.J.Super. at 31, 574 A.2d 449; see also Stewart Equipment Co. v. Gallo, 32 N.J.Super. 15, 107 A.2d 527 (Law Div.1954) (<HOLDING>); Doe, supra, 219 F.3d at 189-90 (suggesting
holding that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the directors of a corporation  holding that the responsibility of another did not absolve the plaintiff of his own responsibility where the plaintiff helped incorporate the company served as vice president and president owned varying levels of stock and possessed authority to hire and fire holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school board president constituted the decision of the board holding that a disclosure by a vice president and sales manager of a corporation did not constitute waiver because he did not seek authorization from the board of directors holding the existence of a deadlock in the board of directors creates no extraordinary powers in the corporate president