MATTER OF GRAND JURY SUBPOENA, ETC., NOV. 16, 1974
Decision Date | 13 November 1975 |
Docket Number | No. M 11-188.,M 11-188. |
Citation | 406 F. Supp. 381 |
Parties | In the Matter of a GRAND JURY SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1974. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Thomas J. Cahill, U. S. Atty., by Elliot G. Sagor, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, for the Government.
David A. Ross, S. E. C., Washington, D. C., Samuel Krieger, New York City, for S. E. C.
Bob Glen Odle, Washington, D. C., for Hogan & Hartson, Respondent.
Lord, Day & Lord, by John W. Castles, III, New York City, for Hogan & Hartson.
Williams, Connolly & Califano, by Pierce O'Donnell, John G. Kester and Robert L. Weinberg, Washington, D. C., for Robert L. Vesco.
Squadron, Gartenberg Ellenoff & Plesent, by Neal M. Goldman, New York City, for Stanley Graze.
Robert D. Foglia, New York City, for Norman E. LeBlanc.
On July 15, 1975, two attorneys associated with Hogan & Hartson, Esqs., a Washington, D.C.-based law firm, appeared before a Special Grand Jury that was charged with investigating suspected securities manipulations by International Controls Corp. (ICC) and Investors Overseas Services, Ltd. (IOS). In response to a subpoena duces tecum dated November 26, 1974, the Hogan & Hartson attorneys submitted all documents described in the subpoena to be marked for identification as Grand Jury exhibits. The attorneys nonetheless refused to cede certain of those documents for Grand Jury inspection or to testify to their contents, contending that attorney-client and work-product privileges barred them from doing so. The United States Attorney thereupon applied to this Court for an order to compel production of the documents and rendition of the testimony thus withheld.
The Grand Jury exhibits at issue consist of notations and memoranda recording interviews and discussions held during a series of meetings that spanned the period from October 1972 to January 1973; the sessions thus memorialized had been prompted by a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation, and subsequent civil action, focused upon suspected broad-ranging and highly sophisticated securities-fraud schemes involving a multitude of individuals and corporations.1 These documents, delivered to the Court for in camera examination, include the following:
The Government's application with respect to the above documents is uniformly opposed by Vesco, LeBlanc, and Graze,2 through their respective counsel, as well as by Hogan & Hartson. That opposition rests principally on the claim of attorney-client privilege. Under the circumstances of this case, such claim cannot succeed unless 1) the attorney-client privilege may be deemed to attach to communications made in the course, and for the advancement, of a joint defense undertaken by and for independently represented clients, 2) the statements and comments by Vesco, LeBlanc, and Graze were in fact designed to develop or further a joint defense, and 3) the documents recording those communications, if in the first instance thus cloaked by the privilege, have not been divested thereof by virtue of any waiver of that privilege.
This Court begins its inquiry mindful, as it must be, that the attorney-client privilege both serves and disserves the administration of justice. Thus, on the one hand, confidences between a client and his counsel need be preserved lest the course of legal representation founder in the absence of the client's "subjective freedom of mind * * * in seeking legal advice." 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2317 (McNaughton rev. ed. 1961); In re Colton, 201 F.Supp. 13, 15 (S.D.N.Y.1961). Nevertheless, at the same time, there remains the competing principle that the public is entitled "to every man's evidence." 8 Wigmore, supra, § 2192 at 70.
This Court, then, is perforce placed in the role of mediator, charged with ensuring that there be no abuse done by or to the privilege, on the one hand, or the necessarily expansive range of the grand jury inquest, on the other.
The sine qua non of the attorney-client privilege is, of course, a confidence reposed—and effectively imposed—for the purpose of obtaining or furthering legal assistance. It therefore must follow, and in general principle it is universally acknowledged, that communications between a client and his counsel in the presence of a "third party," i. e., one who stands in a neutral or adverse position vis-a-vis the subject of the communication, bespeaks the absence of such confidentiality and thus belies any subsequent claim to the privilege. See, e. g., C. McCormick, Evidence § 91 at 188 (2d ed. 1972); Wigmore, supra, § 2311 at 601-03; Annotation, 141 A.L.R. 553 (1942); cf. In re Horowitz, 482 F.2d 72 (2d Cir. 1973); United States v. Tellier, 255 F.2d 441, 447-48 (2d Cir. 1958).
Those cases in which the privilege has been sustained in relation to communications among, or made in the presence of, two or more lay persons and one or more attorneys may be regarded as clarifications of, rather than exceptions to, the rule set forth above. Thus, for example, where there is consultation among several clients and their jointly retained counsel, allied in a common legal cause, it may reasonably be inferred that resultant disclosures are intended to be insulated from exposure beyond the confines of the group; that inference, supported by a demonstration that the disclosures would not have been made but for the sake of securing, advancing, or supplying legal representation, will give sufficient force to a subsequent claim to the privilege. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation, 89 F.Supp. 357 (Mass.1950); see McCormick, supra, § 91 at 189; 8 Wigmore, supra, § 2312 at 603 & n. 1.
To be sure, what is divulged by and to the clients present at such a meeting cannot be deemed to be confidential inter sese; in any later controversy between or among those clients, the privilege could not stand as a bar to full disclosure at the instance of any one of them.3 See, e. g., Grand Trunk Western R. R. Co. v. H. W. Nelson Co., 116 F.2d 823, 835 (6th Cir. 1941); McCormick, supra, § 91 at 189-90; 8 Wigmore, supra, § 2312 at 605-06; cf. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Costa-Gavras
...such that his presence destroys the presumption of attorney-client confidentiality. In the matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated November 16, 1974, 406 F.Supp. 381, 386 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). Moreover, Universal has recognized that "the privilege extends only to communications and not t......
-
Mead Data Central, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Air Force
...v. United States, 175 F.2d 924, 939 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 860, 70 S.Ct. 103, 94 L.Ed. 527 (1949); In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 406 F.Supp. 381 (S.D.N.Y.1975); United States v. Mitchell, 372 F.Supp. 1239, 1245 & n.4 (S.D.N.Y.1973).30 See generally Note, Attorney-Client Privilege f......
-
U.S. v. McPartlin
...Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (1964); Hunydee v. United States, 355 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1965); Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena, 406 F.Supp. 381, 387-389 (S.D.N.Y.1975); See State v. Emmanuel, 42 Wash.2d 799, 259 P.2d 845, 854-855 (1953); Note, "Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege on I......
-
XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Level Global Investors, L.P.
...counsel “can be necessary to a fair opportunity to defend” in a multi-defendant case); cf. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Nov. 16, 1974, 406 F.Supp. 381, 390 (S.D.N.Y.1975) (noting defense group collaboration in defending against SEC enforcement action). This is particularly tr......
-
Table of Cases
...137 Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 462 F. Supp. 685 (M.D. Fla. 1978), 198 Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Nov. 26, 1974, In re , 406 F. Supp. 381 (S.D.N.Y. 1975), 197 Grand Jury Subpoenas, In re , 902 F.2d 244 (4th Cir. 1990), 196 Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. FTC, 440 U.S. 69 (1979), 1......
-
Privileges
...action, state law will determine the existence as well as the proper scope of the attorney-client privilege. In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 406 F.Supp. 381 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). Attorney-client privilege claims were upheld where the parties were interviewed by counsel “as implements of a joint defe......
-
Specific Privileges
...action, state law will determine the existence as well as the proper scope of the attorney-client privilege. In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 406 F.Supp. 381 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). Attorney-client privilege claims were upheld where the parties were interviewed by counsel “as implements of a joint defe......
-
Privileges
...action, state law will determine the existence as well as the proper scope of the attorney-client privilege. In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 406 F.Supp. 381 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). Attorney-client privilege claims were upheld where the parties were interviewed by counsel “as implements of a joint defe......