Facts of the Case
A grand jury issued subpoenas to two parties—“Company” and “Law Firm”—requesting documents and communications related to a criminal investigation into the owner of Company and client of Law Firm. In response to the subpoenas, Company and Law Firm refused to disclose certain documents, citing attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine because the primary purpose of the documents at issue was to seek legal advice, not to obtain tax advice. The government moved to compel production, and the district court granted the government’s motion in part. Company and Law Firm disagreed with the district court’s ruling and continued to withhold the documents. The district court then held Company and Law Firm in contempt. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding the primary purpose of the communications was to obtain legal advice.
Questions
If a communication involves both legal and non-legal advice, when is it protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege?
Conclusions
-
The Court dismissed certiorari as improvidently granted.
Criminal Cases in SCOTUS’s October 2021-22 Terms: Introduction
This is the first in a series of posts on criminal cases and crime-related civil...
The Fifth Amendment’s Act of Production Doctrine: An Overlooked Shield Against Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum
Federalist Society Review, Volume 20
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
Jameel Jaffer and Laura Murphy Testimony Before The House Committee on the Judiciary Oversight Hearing on The Administration’s Use of FISA Authorities
Before The House Committee on the Judiciary Oversight Hearing on The Administration’s Use of...
International Criminal Discovery
Engage Volume 14, Issue 1 February 2013
I. Introduction While money moves at the speed of light across national boundaries, law enforcement...