United States v. Goldfarb, No. 15460.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | MILLER, CECIL and PHILLIPS, Circuit |
| Citation | 328 F.2d 280 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert A. GOLDFARB, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 15460. |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1964 |
328 F.2d 280 (1964)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Albert A. GOLDFARB, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15460.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
February 5, 1964.
Rehearing Denied March 3, 1964.
James H. Hudnut, Detroit, Mich. (Goldfarb & Hudnut, Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellant.
Paul Komives, Detroit, Mich. (Lawrence Gubow, U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MILLER, CECIL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
Defendant-appellant, an attorney, refused to answer certain questions before a grand jury on the grounds that they involved confidential communications between him and his client and come within the attorney-client privileged communications rule. Thereupon he was taken before the Honorable Fred W. Kaess, District Judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, for a ruling as to whether or not the testimony which would be elicited by the questions so propounded was privileged.
The District Judge ruled that certain of the questions were not within the privileged communications rule. When appellant persisted in his refusal to answer the questions the District Judge entered an order adjudging appellant to be in civil contempt of court for failure to answer the questions put to him and committing him to the custody of the United States Marshal until such time as his contempt has been purged. This order was suspended pending proceedings on appeal.
The background facts may be summarized as follows:
The United States was seeking an indictment against one Charles Sherman, and sought information concerning an alleged real estate transaction between Sherman and Walter Pilat. Appellant was attorney for Pilat, and Lawrence Burns was attorney for Sherman.
The four questions which appellant refused to answer were as follows:
1. Did you have occasion to discuss the matter of the purchase of the house with one Lawrence Burns during 1961?
2. To your knowledge did Mr. Lawrence Burns represent as attorney or otherwise Mr. Charles Sherman with respect to the sale or disposition of the house at 11310 Myers Road, in connection with any conversation that you may have had or dealings you may have had with Mr. Lawrence Burns, on behalf of Mr. Walter Pilat?
3. Did you have occasion to have a conversation with one Lawrence Burns during 1961, or at any other time in which the subject of the house at 11310 Myers Road was discussed?
4. Have you at any time had discussions with, or negotiations with Mr. Charles Sherman, or his wife, or attorneys, or agents on their behalf in connection with the sale or disposal of the house located at 11310 Myers Road by them?
It is a general rule that confidential...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Ramirez, No. 79-1106
...352 U.S. 833, 77 S.Ct. 48, 1 L.Ed.2d 52 (1956); Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 579 (E.D.Wash.1975); But see United States v. Goldfarb, 328 F.2d 280, 282 (6 Cir. 1964). But it has been held that as to an attorney's communication to the client, the privilege extends only to those based on conf......
-
United States v. King, No. CR 81-366 MRP.
...which have any bearing, direct or indirect, upon the relationship of the attorney with his client." United States v. Goldfarb, 328 F.2d 280, 281-82 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 976, 84 S.Ct. 1883, 12 L.Ed.2d 746 (1964). "Once the attorney-client relationship is established, ......
-
Fisher v. United States United States v. Kasmir, Nos. 74-18
...curiam, 339 U.S. 974, 70 S.Ct. 1029, 94 L.Ed. 1380 (1950); Schwimmer v. United States, 232 F.2d 855 (CA8 1956); United States v. Goldfarb, 328 F.2d 280 (CA6 1964). As a practical matter, if the client knows that damaging information could more readily be obtained from the attorney following......
-
United States v. Schmidt, Civ. No. 71-398.
...he nevertheless could not refuse to testify on the ground that McCue might be incriminated. United States v. Goldfarb, 6 Cir., 328 F.2d 280, 282, cert. denied, 1964, 377 U.S. 976, 84 S.Ct. 1883, 12 L.Ed.2d 746; United States v. Conte, D.Del.1969, 300 F.Supp. 73, 75; cf. Brody v. United Stat......
-
United States v. WARRANT AUTHORIZING, ETC., No. M81-18.
...their professional relationship, and it is designed to insure confidence, and complete disclosure between them. United States v. Goldfarb, 328 F.2d 280 (6th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 377 U.S. 976, 84 S.Ct. 1883, 12 L.Ed.2d 746 (1964); Baird v. Koerner, 279 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. However, in this......
-
Humphreys, Hutcheson & Moseley v. Donovan, No. 78-3450.
...Corporation, 89 F.Supp. 357, 358-59 (D.Mass.1950) (classic case on the attorney-client privilege). See also United States v. Goldfarb, 328 F.2d 280, 281 (6th Cir.1964) (Sixth Circuit applies the same However, the privilege does not exclude all communications between an attorney and his clie......
-
John B. v. Goetz, No. 3:98–0168.
...should not be extended to accomplish more than its purpose.” 755 F.2d at 1219. (citations omitted). Accord United States v. Goldfarb, 328 F.2d 280, 281–82 (6th Cir.1964) (Attorney-client relationship does not create an automatic “cloak of protection ... draped around all occurrences and con......
-
Durand v. Hanover Ins. Grp., Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07–CV–00130–HBB
...protection is waived. Reed , 134 F.3d at 355–56 (citing Fausek v. White , 965 F.2d 126, 129 (6th Cir. 1992) ; United States v. Goldfarb , 328 F.2d 280, 281 (6th Cir. 1964) ). Notably, the party asserting the attorney-client privilege must prove its applicability. In re Grand Jury Investigat......