Owner and his employee, Driver, consult Attorney about a motor vehicle collision resulting in a suit by Litigant against Owner and Driver as joint defendants. Attorney calls Irving, his investigator, into the conference to make notes of what is said, and those present discuss the facts of the collision and Owner's insurance. Owner thereafter files a cross-claim against Driver for indemnity for any damages obtained by LitigantDriver calls Irving in his defense against the cross-claim. He seeks to have Irving testify to an admission made by Owner in the conference. On objection by Owner, the court should rule that Irving's testimony is
admissible, because the attorney-client privilege does not apply, in suits between those conferring with him, to joint consultations with an attorney.  admissible, because the attorney-client privilege does not apply to testimony by one who does not stand in a confidential relationship with the person against whom the evidence is offered.  admissible, because the conference was not intended to be confidential, since it concerned anticipated testimony in open court.  inadmissible, because Owner has not waived the attorney-client privilege.
Question: Owner and his employee, Driver, consult Attorney about a motor vehicle collision resulting in a suit by Litigant against Owner and Driver as joint defendants. Attorney calls Irving, his investigator, into the conference to make notes of what is said, and those present discuss the facts of the collision and Owner's insurance. Owner thereafter files a cross-claim against Driver for indemnity for any damages obtained by LitigantDriver calls Irving in his defense against the cross-claim. He seeks to have Irving testify to an admission made by Owner in the conference. On objection by Owner, the court should rule that Irving's testimony is
A. admissible, because the attorney-client privilege does not apply, in suits between those conferring with him, to joint consultations with an attorney. 
B. admissible, because the attorney-client privilege does not apply to testimony by one who does not stand in a confidential relationship with the person against whom the evidence is offered. 
C. admissible, because the conference was not intended to be confidential, since it concerned anticipated testimony in open court. 
D. inadmissible, because Owner has not waived the attorney-client privilege.
Answer: