Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

In re Grand Jury

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
In re Grand Jury
Term: 2022
Important Dates
Argued: January 9, 2023
Decided: January 23, 2023
Outcome
Dismissed
Vote
NA
Majority
Per curiam

In re Grand Jury is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 23, 2023, during the court's October 2022-2023 term. The case was argued before the court on January 9, 2023. The court dismissed the writ of certiorari for the case.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned protected documents related to grand jury subpoenas. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether a communication involving both legal and non-legal advice is protected by attorney-client privilege where obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes behind the communication."[1]
  • The outcome: In a per curiam decision, the court dismissed the writ of certiorari for the case.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • January 23, 2023: The court dismissed the writ of certiorari for the case.
    • January 9, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • October 3, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • April 1, 2022: The petitioner appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • September 13, 2021: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders holding Company and Law Firm in contempt for failure to comply with subpoenas.

    Background

    The petitioner in this case is an unnamed law firm ("Law Firm") specializing in international tax issues. The firm was served with grand jury subpoenas requesting documents and communications in a criminal investigation of its client ("Company"). The names of the firm and company were redacted in the proceedings below. Company and Law Firm produced some of the requested material and withheld some, citing attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine.[2] Law Firm claimed that some of the protected documents were dual-purpose communications, meaning that the firm was both preparing Company's tax returns and providing legal advice.[3][4][5]

    In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the government moved to compel Company and Law Firm to produce the withheld documents. The court granted the request in part, concluding that the documents were not covered under the cited privilege. Company and Law Firm disagreed and continued to withhold the documents. The government moved to hold them in contempt of court, which the district court granted. Company and Law Firm appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[3][4]

    Ninth Circuit order and opinion

    On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. Judge Kenneth Kiyul Lee delivered the order and opinion of the court:[3]

    “ ORDER

    The Opinion filed on September 13, 2021, is amended as follows:

    On slip opinion page 12, footnote 5, replace < tax advice> with < tax return preparation assistance>.

    The Clerk shall file the amended opinion submitted with this Order.

    Appellants' Petitions for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc (Dkt. No. 65) are otherwise DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing may be filed. Appellants' motion to unseal the petitions and the amicus briefs (Dkt. No. 66) is DENIED as moot.


    AMENDED OPINION

    Given our increasingly complex regulatory landscape, attorneys often wear dual hats, serving as both a lawyer and a trusted business advisor. Our court, however, has yet to articulate a consistent standard for determining when the attorney-client privilege applies to dual-purpose communications that implicate both legal and business concerns.

    In this case, the grand jury issued subpoenas related to a criminal investigation. The district court held Appellants—whom we identify as "Company" and "Law Firm"—in contempt after they failed to comply with the subpoenas. The district court ruled that certain dual-purpose communications were not privileged because the "primary purpose" of the documents was to obtain tax advice, not legal advice. Appellants argue that the district court erred in relying on the "primary purpose" test and should have instead relied on a broader "because of" test. We affirm and conclude that the primary-purpose test governs in assessing attorney-client privilege for dual-purpose communications.[6]

    		”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether a communication involving both legal and non-legal advice is protected by attorney-client privilege where obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes behind the communication.[6] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    In a per curiam decision, the court dismissed the case from its merits docket as improvidently granted, meaning that the court ruled that it should not have taken up the case.[9]

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here. A per curiam decision is issued collectively by the court. The authorship is not indicated. Click here for more information.



    October term 2022-2023

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[10]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "QP REPORT 21-1397 IN RE GRAND JURY V.," October 3, 2022
    2. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "Attorney work product privilege," accessed October 6, 2022
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, In re Grand Jury, September 13, 2021
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "IN RE GRAND JURY On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit," filed April 1, 2022
    5. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Court agrees to hear nine new cases, including challenge to tech companies’ immunity under Section 230," October 3, 2022
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued January 9, 2023
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued January 9, 2023
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "In Re Grand Jury on Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit" January 23, 2023
    10. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=In_re_Grand_Jury&oldid=9055012"