X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The defendant-appellant in this sealed case appeals the district court’s order that his former counsel comply with a grand jury subpoena and the court’s order denying the appellant’s motion to quash that subpoena. Because the appeal involved stayed proceedings before a grand jury and the briefs and record on appeal were sealed, the court uses generic terms to name the people involved. The police arrested the appellant after they conducted a search of the house where he resided with his girlfriend (witness) and her minor child. The police acted on a complaint that drug trafficking was occurring at witness’ house. With witness’ permission to search her house, the police discovered, on an upper closet shelf, a loaded pistol, a loaded pistol clip, a bag of marijuana, money and other drug paraphernalia. Witness told police she had no idea how the pistol got into her house. The police did not arrest her due to her surprise at the discovery. While the police were still at her house, she called appellant and asked him to come home. When appellant arrived, he told the police that the pistol and the marijuana were his; and the police placed him under arrest. Shortly after the appellant’s arrest, the witness provided a sworn, written statement to an ATF agent in which she declared that she did not know how the pistol got into her house and that she was shocked to see the pistol and the marijuana. The district court appointed former counsel to represent the appellant. Shortly prior to his scheduled trial date, the appellant informed the district court by a filed letter that former counsel refused to present his defense in a manner which the appellant approved. The appellant denied that the firearm belonged to him, asserted that former counsel would not allow him to defend himself, and stated that former counsel refused to allow the owner of the firearm to come forward. That same day, former counsel moved to withdraw. The district court granted former counsel’s motion to withdraw. The government issued to former counsel a grand jury subpoena seeking his testimony and “[a]ll written statements of [Appellant and Witness] and all notes, records, and recordings of interviews of [Appellant and Witness].” Former counsel refused to appear before the grand jury unless he was ordered to do so by the court; he alleged that the information sought was protected by the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The district court ordered former counsel to appear with all written statements and recordings from the appellant and the witness for an in camera examination in chambers. The court found the government met its prima facie case by showing that, during former counsel’s representation of the appellant, the appellant and the witness were committing or intending to commit a crime or fraud and that the appellant’s and the witness’s communications with former counsel were in furtherance of that crime or fraud. The district court concluded the crime-fraud exception applied and ordered, in language tracking the grand jury subpoena, former counsel to comply with the subpoena. The court additionally ordered that former counsel should not assert the attorney-client or work-product privilege as grounds for refusing to comply with the subpoena. The appellant moved to quash former counsel’s grand jury subpoena. The district court denied the appellant’s motion to quash. The court concluded that the government established the applicability of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client and the work-product privileges and, in language tracking the grand jury subpoena, ordered the former counsel to comply with the subpoena. The court again ordered that former counsel should not assert the attorney-client or work-product privilege as grounds for refusing to comply with the subpoena. HOLDING:The court vacates the district court’s orders, grants appellant’s motion to quash the grand jury subpoena, and remands. The court agrees with the appellant that the district court’s orders compelling former counsel to comply with the grand jury subpoena in this case are overly broad. The court concludes that the proper reach of the crime-fraud exception – when applicable � does not extend to all communications made in the course of the attorney-client relationship but rather is limited to those communications and documents in furtherance of the contemplated or ongoing criminal or fraudulent conduct. Based upon an examination of the sealed record, including the in camera examination of former counsel, the court concludes that this case does not present a situation where the appellant’s entire criminal representation by former counsel was based upon or sought for the sole purpose of perpetuating a crime or fraud. The district court’s orders compelling former counsel’s compliance with the grand jury subpoena here did not in any way limit the required disclosures. The orders compel former counsel to bring all written statements of the appellant and witness and all notes, records and recordings of interviews of appellant and witness. Because the court’s orders compel former counsel to appear and order that he cannot assert any attorney-client or work product-privilege, no boundary exists as to the extent of his compelled testimony. The court’s application of the crime-fraud exception was overly broad, because it lacked the requisite specificity to reach only communications and documents no longer protected by the attorney-client and work-product privileges, the court states. The court finds that the district court’s orders compelling former counsel to comply with the grand jury subpoena and denying the appellant’s motion to quash the subpoena issued in error. After the party seeking disclosure meets its prima facie showing that the client intended to further an ongoing crime or fraud during the attorney-client relationship such that the crime-fraud exception applies, the only attorney-client communications and work product materials falling within the scope of the crime-fraud exception are those shown to hold “some valid relationship” to the prima facie violation such that they “reasonably relate to the fraudulent activity.” In Re: International Systems & Controls Corp. Securities Litigation, 693 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1982). The court quotes International Systems‘ statement that “[T]he exact formulation of a test for relatedness is less important than an understanding of what the [scope] test must accomplish; easy differentiation between material for which the law should not furnish the protections of a privilege and material for which a privilege should be respected.” OPINION:Harold R. DeMoss Jr., J.; Jolly, Smith and DeMoss, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.