Where Does Advocacy End and Obstruction Begin?

Journal of Financial Crime

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 68-82

  Silets, H L ^a   Overbey, D L ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872983202     PISSN: 13590790     EISSN: 17587239     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/eb025967     Document Type: Review

References (138)

1. Wigmore, J. ‘Evidence’ (J. McNaughton rev. edn 1961) Vol. 8, §2298.
2. United States v Wade, 388 US 218, 256–257 (1967) (White J, concurring in part and dissenting in part).
3. Wigmore, ‘Evidence’, at 542.
4. United States v Wade, p. 543, citing Berd v Lovelace, 21 Eng. Rep. 33 (Ch. 1577) (solicitor exempted from examination touching his cause).
5. Berd v Lovelace. (quoting Taylor v Blacklow, 132 Eng. Rep. 401, 406 (CP 1836)).
6. Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers §118 cmt. c (Proposed Final Draft 1996) (hereinafter Rest. 3d).
7. United States v United Shoe Much. Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357 (D Mass. 1950) (quoting ALI Model Code of Evidence Rule 210 cmt. (1942)).
8. Rest. 3d, Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, §118.
9. Rest. 3d, Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, §118 cmt. d.
10. Rest. 3d, Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, §119.
11. Haines v Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1992) (privilege extends to verbal statements, documents and tangible objects conveyed in confidence for the purpose of legal advice).
12. Rest. 3d, Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, §119 cmt. b.
13. Worthy, P. M. (1996) ‘The Impact of New of Emerging Telecommunications Technologies: A Call to the Rescue of the Attorney-Client Privilege’, Howard LJ 437, 465–466.
14. Cal. Evid. Code §952 (‘communication between a client and his or her lawyer is not deemed lacking in confidentiality solely because the communication is transmitted by facsimile, cellular telephone; or other electronic means between the client and his or her lawyer’)
15. 18 USC §§2510-2710 (1986).
16. Morgan, L. W. (1999) ‘Attorney-Client Privilege in E-Mail Communications’, No. 2 Prac. Law. Vol. 45, p. 59 (citing multiple authority).
17. Fisher v United Slates, 425 US 391, 403 (1976) (documents that otherwise could have been obtained from the client may be obtained from the client's attorney even if transferred to the attorney for the purpose of seeking legal advice).
18. Solovy, J. S. et al. (1997) ‘Protecting Confidential Legal Information 2’ (hereinafter Solovy, Protecting).
19. Upjohn Co. v United States, 449 US 383, 395-396 (1981) (‘The protection of the privilege extends only to communications and not to facts. A fact is one thing and a communication concerning that fact is an entirely different thing’).
20. Solovy, Protecting, ‘Protecting Confidential Legal Information 2’, at 2.
21. Rest. 3D, Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, §119 cmt. j.
22. In re January 1976 Grand Jury, 534 F.2d 719, 728 (7th Cir. 1976) (bank robbery proceeds not privileged).
23. Louisiana v Green, 493 So. 2d 1178 (La. 1986).
24. Anderson v Florida, 297 So. 2d 871 (Fla Dist. Ct App. 1974) (same).
25. Rest. 3d, Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, §119 cmt. e.
26. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 517 F.2d 666, 670-671 (5th Cir. 1975) (identity of client not privileged).
27. Frank v Tomlinson, 351 F.2d 384 (5th Cir. 1965) (‘the identity of a client … [is a] matter which an attorney normally may not refuse to disclose’)
28. (citing and quoting Colton v United Slates, 306 F.2d 633, 637 (2d Cir. 1962)).
29. In re Shargel, 742 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir. 1984) (‘[w]e have consistently held that client identity … [is], absent special circumstances, not privileged’)
30. Condon v Petacque, 90 FRD 53, 54-55 (ND Ill. 1981) (fact of consultation and the dates legal services were performed are not privileged).
31. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 841 F.2d 230, 232 (8th Cir. 1988) (identity of a third party paying the legal fees of another is not privileged).
32. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 803 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1986),
33. corrected on other grounds, 817 F.2d 64 (9th Cir. 1987) (identity of a non-client fee payer is not privileged). (
34. In re Shargel, 742 F.2d at 62 (information about fees is not protected).
35. In re Grand Jury Proceeding, 721 F.2d 1221, 1222 (9th Cir. 1983) (fee arrangements between a client and attorney are normally not privileged).
36. Solovy, Protecting, ‘Protecting Confidential Legal Information 2’, at 3.
37. In re Grand Jury Proceeding, 898 F.2d 565 (7th Cir. 1990).
38. In re Subpoenaed Grand Jury Witness, 171 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 1999).
39. In re Grand Jury Proceeding, 721 F.2d at 1222 (fee arrangements between a client and attorney are normally not privileged).
40. United States v Davis, 636 F.2d 1028, 1044 (5th Cir. 1981) (financial transaction between an attorney and client are generally not privileged).
41. In re Slaughter, 694 F.2d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 1982) (information about fees is not protected).
42. In re Grand Jury Proceeding, 898 F.2d at 567.
43. United States v Kovel, 296 F.2d 981, 920-922 (2d Cir. 1961) (accountant acting for client in translating financial data for benefit of client's lawyer privileged equally with translator of foreign language).
44. Von Bulow v Von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 146–147 (2d Cir. 1987).
45. Hickman v Taylor, 329 US 495, 510 (1947).
46. Dunn v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 927 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. 1991) (investigative tasks of insurer's attorney were related to the rendering of legal services and thus any communication involving the investigation were privileged).
47. Time Corp. v Sharp Elec. Corp., 95 FRD 27, 31 (SDNY 1982) (communication of exclusively technical information to patent attorneys not privileged, however, documents containing significant amounts of technical information will be privileged if they are concerned primarily with a request for provision of legal advice).
48. Crane Co. v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 27 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1058, 1059–1060 (ND Ohio 1979) (inclusion of technical information in a communication to an attorney does not foreclose the privilege).
49. United States v United Shoe Mach. Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357, 359 (D Mass. 1950) (‘privilege of nondisclosure is not lost merely because relevant nonlegal considerations are expressly stated in a communication which also includes legal advice’).
50. Simon v G. D. Searle & Co., 816 F.2d 397, 402–404 (8th Cir. 1987) (business documents were not privileged because they were provided to lawyer solely to keep her apprised of business matters).
51. In re Sealed Case 737 F.2d 94, 99 (DC Cir. 1984) (to invoke the privilege there must be a clear showing that the communications with in-house counsel were in a legal rather than a business capacity).
52. Slender v Lucky Stores, 803 F. Supp. 259, 330 (ND Cal. 1992) (privilege may be asserted for a meeting which was scheduled for a purpose other than facilitating the provision of professional legal services to the client).
53. Dunn v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 122 FRD 507, 509 (ND Miss. 1988), aff'd, 927 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. 1991) (merely assigning an attorney investigative tasks does not destroy his ability to make privileged communications).
54. In re Air Crash Disaster, 133 FRD 515, 518, 523 (ND Ill. 1990) (documents that do not seek legal advice and documents that seek both legal and non-legal advice are not privileged).
55. J.P. Foley & Co. v Vanderbilt, 65 FRD 523 (SDNY 1974) (confidential communications are not privileged when an attorney acts as a negotiator or business agent for the client).
56. Haines v Liggett Group Inc., 995 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1992).
57. United States v Construction Prods. Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464 (2d Cir. 1995) (claim of privileged information will be rejected if party invoking privilege does not provide sufficient detail through privilege log, affidavit or deposition testimony).
58. Jack Winter, Inc. v Koratron Co., 54 FRD 44 (ND Cal. 1971).
59. United States v Zolin, 491 US 554, 568 (1989).
60. Swidler & Berlin v United States, 524 US 399 (1998).
61. Interfaith Hous. Dev., Inc. v Georgetown, 841 F. Supp. 1393 (D Del. 1994).
62. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v Weintraub, 471 US 343, 348–349 (1985).
63. Wechsler v Squadron, 994 F. Supp. 202, 210 (SDNY 1998).
64. Hawkins v Stables, 148 F.3d 379, 384 (4th Cir. 1998).
65. United States v Blackburn, 446 F.2d 1089, 1091 (5th Cir. 1971).
66. Mergentime Corp. v Washington Metro. Area Transp. Auth., 761 F. Supp. 1, 2 (DDC 1991).
67. Golden Valley Microwave Foods, Inc. v Weaver Popcorn Co., 132 FRD 204, 208 (ND Ind. 1990).
68. In re Sealed Case, 877 F.2d 976, 980–981 (DC Cir. 1989).
69. Weil v Investment/Indicators, Research & Management, 647 F.2d 18 (9th Cir. 1981).
70. First Wis. Mortgage Trust v First Wis. Corp., 86 FRD 160, 173–174 (ED Wis. 1980).
71. Trammel v United States, 445 US 40, 50 (1980).
72. Fisher v United States, 425 US 391, 403 (1976).
73. Regina v Cox, 14 QDD 153, 168 (1884).
74. Fried, D. J. (1986) ‘Too High a Price for Truth: The Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege for Contemplated Crimes and Frauds’, 64 NCL Rev., Vol. 64, pp. 443, 456–458.
75. Fisher, 425 US at 403.
76. United States v Zolin, 491 US 554, 562–563 (1989).
77. Zolin, 491 US at 563 (quoting O'Rourke v Darbishire, [1920] AC 581, 604 (PC)).
78. In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings, 89–10, 938 F.2d 1578 (11th Cir. 1991).
79. Duttle v Bandler & Kass, 127 FRD 46 (SDNY 1989).
80. Clark v United States, 289 US 1, 15 (1933).
81. Corp. v Doe, 805 F. Supp. 1298, 1307 n.16 (ED Va 1992).
82. Fried, Regina v Cox, at 458–459.
83. United States v Bauer, 132 F.3d 504, 509 (9th Cir. 1997).
84. Zolin, 491 US at 564 n.7.
85. Zolin, 491 US at 574 and n.12.
86. In re Search Warrant, 173 F.3d 429, 1999 WL 137499.
87. In re Richard Roe, Inc., 168 F.3d 69 (2nd Cir. 1999).
88. Zolin, 491 US at 570.
89. Haines v Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1992).
90. Iron Workers Local Union No. 17 Ins. Fund v Morris, 35 F. Supp. 2d 582 (ND Ohio 1999).
91. United States v Cihak, 137 F.3d 252, 262 (5th Cir.).
92. 18 USCA §1501 (West 1999) (‘Assault on process server’).
93. 18 USCA §1502 (‘Resistance to extradition gent’).
94. 18 USCA §1503 (‘Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally’).
95. 18 USCA §1504 (‘Influencing juror by writing’).
96. 18 USCA §1505 (‘Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, committees’).
97. 18 USCA §1506 (‘Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail’).
98. 18 USCA §1507 (‘Picketing or parading’).
99. 18 USCA §1508 (‘Recording, listening to, or observing proceedings of grand or petit juries while deliberating or voting’).
100. 18 USCA §1509 (‘Obstruction of court orders’)
101. 18 USCA §1510 (‘Obstruction of criminal investigations’).
102. 18 USCA §1511 (‘Obstruction of State or local law enforcement’).
103. 18 USCA §1512 (‘Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant’).
104. 18 USCA §1513 (‘Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant’).
105. 18 USCA §1514 (‘Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness’).
106. 18 USCA §1515 (‘Definitions for certain provisions; general provision’).
107. 18 USCA §1516 (‘Obstruction of Federal audit’).
108. 18 USCA §1517 (‘Obstructing examination of financial institution’).
109. 18 USCA §1518 (‘Obstruction of criminal investigations of health care offences’).
110. 18 USCA §1503(a)' (West 1999).
111. Pettibone v United States, 148 US 197, 207 (1893).
112. United States v Cueto, 151 F.3d 620, 631 (7th Cir. 1998).
113. United States v Lundwall, 1 F. Supp. 2d, 249, 252 (SDNY 1998).
114. United States v Solow, 138 F. Supp. 812, 815 (SDNY 1956).
115. Catrino v United States, 176 F.2d 884, 887 (9th Cir. 1949).
116. United States v Reed, 773 F.2d 477, 485 (2d Cir. 1985).
117. Lundwall, 1 F. Supp. 2d at 252.
118. Reed, 772, F.2d at 485–486.
119. Act of 2nd March, 1831, ch. 99, 4 Stat. 487–488.
120. Lundwall, 1 F. Supp. 2d at 252 (quoting Nelles and King (1928)).
121. ‘Contempt by Publication in the United States Since the Federal Contempt Statute’, Colum. L Rev. Vol. 26, pp. 525, 531).
122. Pub. L. No. 104–214, §3, 110 Stat. 3017 (1996) (amending 18 USC §1503).
123. HR Rep. NO. 104–549, at 3 (1996), reprinted in 1996 USCCAN 3401, 3403.
124. United States v Cueto, 151 F.3d 620, 624 (7th Cir. 1998).
125. Cueto, 151 F.3d at 624.
126. Cueto, n. 1.
127. Venezia v Robinson, 16 F.3d 209, 210 (7th Cir. 1994).
128. Cueto, 151 F.3d at 626.
129. Venezia, 16 F.3d 209 (7th Cir. 1994).
130. Cueto, 151 F.3d at 627.
131. United States v Cueto, CR. 96-30070-WDS (SD Ill. July 18, 1996).
132. Cueto, 151 F.3d at 630.
133. Friendly, H.J. (1975) ‘Some Kind of Hearing’, 123 U Pa L Rev., Vol. 123, pp. 1267, 1288.
134. Cueto, 151 F.3d at 630-631.
135. United States v Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980, 991 (1st Cir. 1987).
136. Beckner, R. B. (1999) ‘Legal Jeopardy’, Litigation, Vol. 25, No. 2, p. 57.
137. Cueto, 151 F.3d at 625.
138. Cueto, p. 626.