In re Grand Jury
Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org
Argued on Jan 9, 2023.Decided on Jan 23, 2023.
Petitioner: In re Grand Jury.
Advocates: Daniel B. Levin (for the Petitioner)
Masha G. Hansford (for the United States)
Facts of the case (from oyez.org)
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.

Question
If a communication involves both legal and non-legal advice, when is it protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege?

Conclusion
The Court dismissed certiorari as improvidently granted.