Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Legal Tech: The Attorney-Client Privilege Purpose Requirement and E-Discovery
On Jan. 9, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether the attorney-client privilege protects against disclosure of dual-purpose communications — where the communications contain both legal and nonlegal advice. The case, In re Grand Jury, 23 F.4th 1088 (9th Cir. 2022), is under review to determine this question. In re Grand Jury arose from a grand jury subpoena to a law firm seeking communications related to tax advice given to a client. The firm refused to produce certain documents citing attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. The government moved to compel the production of the withheld documents, which the court granted in part. Among the withheld documents that the court ordered produced without redactions were emails containing attorney recommendations.
In considering whether the attorney-client privilege attached to the disputed dual-purpose communications, the district court applied the "primary purpose" test. The district court held that the attorney-client privilege did not protect a subset of documents whose predominate purpose was the procedural aspects of tax return preparation and not tax legal advice. The district court acknowledged the "significant purpose" test adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in In re Kellogg Brown & Root, an opinion written by then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh, holding that the attorney-client privilege applies if "solicitation of legal advice was one of the material purposes of the communication." But the district court rejected that standard, holding that "the relevant consideration is whether the primary or predominate purpose of the communication was to seek legal advice or to provide the corresponding legal advice."
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.