legal advice from University counsel and, furthermore, that her communication to him was made in confidence. Confidential communications are those “communications which the client either expressly made confidential or which he could reasonably assume under the circumstances would be understood by the attorney as so intended.” State v. Schubert, supra, 235 N.J.Super. at 221, 561 A.2d 1186. Furthermore, confidential communications may be disclosed to a non-client or non-party who shares the client’s interest, without surrendering confidentiality. See In re State Comm’n of Investigation Subpoena No. 5441, 226 N.J.Super. 461, 466-67, 544 A.2d 893 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 113 N.J. 382, 550 A.2d 484 (1988). In this case, Sharp had a reasonable expectation of con pp. 502, 506 (D.D.C.1983) (<HOLDING>); L.S.B. Indus., Inc. v. Gomm’r, 556 F.Supp.
holding that an invocation of the advice of counsel defense waives the attorneyclient privilege 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 communications between corporate counsel and corporations employees made for the purpose of rendering legal advice protected by attorneyclient privilege holding that internal policy memorandum not generally distributed to employees did not create an implied condition to an employees contract even though that employee had requested an obtained a copy 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