The attack on the attorney client privilege
This article presents a summary of the issues and concerns regarding the curtailment of the attorney client privilege raised by the In re Grand Jury case decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That case has created nationwide confusion about the extent of the protection. In re Grand Jury, 23 F. 4th 1088 (9th Cir. 2022). Corporate managers and counsel must take heed of this decision because it impacts the confidentiality of legal advice, whether it is routine or strategic. The decision will be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS), but the outcome of that review is anyone’s guess.
In the Grand Jury case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s decision that ordered production of a law firm’s documents that included so called “dual purpose” advice to its client. That is, advice provided to a client by a lawyer that addresses both business and legal matters.
In writing its opinion, the Court expressly decided against the law firm’s position that any document that contained both legal and business advice is protected from production by the attorney client privilege. Instead, the Ninth Circuit crafted a “test” that must be employed in order to determine whether the documents must be produced for review by an adversary as follows: Where “dual purpose” advice is provided, if the nonlegal purpose of the advice is found to outweigh the legal purpose, then the communication is not privileged and is subject to disclosure. See In re Grand Jury, 23 F. 4th at 109.
The primary concern about this “test” is that it gives the trial judge unfettered discretion to “weigh” the advice given. That discretion is seemingly without limit. Admittedly, the “weight” of the advice cannot be determined as if the advice were placed on a counter scale in a meat market. However, no guidelines have been provided by the Ninth Circuit about how to conduct that weighting of the advice.
Without question, management and corporate counsel must be aware of the Grand Jury decision since most businesses regularly obtain “dual purpose” advice. Strategies should be developed regarding the request and rendering of legal advice in order to deal with a SCOTUS decision that might approve of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. Also, this article describes the significant and rare opportunity that businesses and their counsel have right now to present their views directly to SCOTUS about how the controversy should be resolved. The vehicle for presenting those views, without becoming embroiled in the case as a party, is an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief that can be prepared by legal counsel and filed directly with SCOTUS. See SUP. CT. R. 37.1, 37.3(a) (Filing deadlines and other conditions precedent are strictly enforced.).
Factual context of In re Grand Jury.
In order to fully grasp the threat to the attorney client privilege, it is important to understand the facts in the Grand Jury case. That case arose from a grand jury proceeding initiated by the federal government to investigate a company’s suspected tax fraud. As part of that investigation, the federal government’s lawyers demanded the company’s lawyers produce all documents that contained tax advice it gave to the company. The law firm objected to production based on the protections afforded by the attorney client privilege. However, the trial court overruled the objection and ordered production of so called “dual purpose” documentary evidence withheld by the firm. That decision was appealed by the law firm to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where the firm sought reversal of the trial court’s order.
After full briefing and submission to the Ninth Circuit, a decision was rendered affirming the trial court’s order. In so doing, the Ninth Circuit crafted the “test” described above, i.e.,: where “dual purpose” advice is provided, if the nonlegal purpose of the advice is found to outweigh the legal purpose, then the communication is not privileged and is subject to disclosure. See In re Grand Jury, 23 F. 4th at 1091–93.
That decision caused the law firm to appeal to our court of last resort, SCOTUS. Recently, the law firm’s appeal, asserted by filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Petition), was granted. So, SCOTUS should hear and decide the case in the next year. In its petition, the law firm made it clear that the Ninth Circuit’s decision requiring production of the evidence of its advice to its client is not only erroneous, but it creates uncertainty in all aspects of corporate or business management where legal guidance is obtained.
The “split” of authority compounds the uncertainty
In its briefing, the law firm pointed out to SCOTUS that there is a “split” of authority between three Circuit Courts of Appeal. That “split” heaps additional uncertainty upon the viability of the attorney client privilege because the “tests” of each of the three Circuit Courts are materially different.
The Seventh Circuit holds that in the case of a dual purpose communication, the privilege does not apply to communications that serve both legal and nonlegal purposes. United States v. Frederick, 182 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999). There is no requirement to determine which type of advice outweighs the other. The mere fact that the document contains nonlegal information renders the privilege inapplicable. Id.
In marked contrast with the Ninth and Seventh Circuits, the D.C. Circuit decision “boils down to whether obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes of the attorney-client communication.” In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754, 760 (D.C. Cir. 2014), (Emphasis added); accord Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., 892 F.3d 1264, 1267–68 (D.C. Cir. 2018). While Frederick concerned a document created to prepare an income tax return and for use in litigation, the ultimate application of the holding could apply to any part of a communication from attorneys to their clients.
Specific irreconcilable dilemmas.
The lawyers who petitioned SCOTUS and three Amici that have filed preliminary “friend of the court” briefs have identified a list of irreconcilable dilemmas that are raised by the Ninth Circuit decision. Any business should be concerned about these issues:
The importance of amicus curiae briefs
It is the job of SCOTUS to decide what test should be applied in the Grand Jury case. Even more important is the fact that whatever “test” SCOTUS adopts will be applied in the future to any case in the United States.
The above listed complications of the Ninth Circuit “test” that weakens, if not abrogates the attorney client privilege as to “dual purpose” advice, are not exclusive. No doubt, many businesses could demonstrate other flaws in the Ninth Circuit’s opinion by discussing how the “test” affects that business’s unique methods and processes. A non-duplicative amicus brief supplying that type of information can significantly aid SCOTUS in order that SCOTUS can gain an understanding of the fundamental concerns and issues impacting businesses.
Further, amicus briefs filed by significant industry players or their trade associations are likely to draw the attention of the justices and their staffs. Unquestionably, when making significant decisions involving the law and policy, SCOTUS does consider positions announced in Amicus briefs. For instance, in the opinion, concurrences, and dissent issued in SCOTUS’s recent opinion in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 142 S.Ct. 2228, 213 L.Ed.2d 545 (2022), the justices made at least thirty six references to arguments made by amicus curiae.
Without the unique information that can be supplied by businesses, SCOTUS could make a “wrong turn.” The advice offered in amicus curiae briefs will be critical in SCOTUS’s deliberations.
The uncertainty created by the Grand Jury case is potentially crippling to any business. If that Ninth Circuit “test” becomes “the law” across the United States, management will be asking for legal advice about just what types of advice can be counted on to be privileged. Any lawyer worth her salt, of necessity, is going to give an answer like this: “It depends.” Of course, such advice is not helpful, but it would be accurate if the Grand Jury case holding were to be adopted by SCOTUS. Amicus briefs could make the difference between a SCOTUS decision that renders a uniform, reasonable “test” and one that chills requests for legal advice.
Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you (an â€˜engagement letterâ€™).
By clicking the â€˜ACCEPTâ€™ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and, further, even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you. Please click the â€˜ACCEPTâ€™ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.