IN RE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS REQUEST FOR COMPULSION ORDER AGAINST JOHN DOE; RICHARD ROE AND CORPORATION X, APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the government made a prima facie showing that the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine was applicable.
The district court compelled an attorney to testify before a grand jury based on a prima facie showing of the crime/fraud exception. The court reviewe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Work Product Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge:
This case involves the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. The district court issued an order compelling John Doe, the attorney for Richard Roe and Corporation X, to testify before the grand jury because it found that the government had made a prima facie showing that the crime/fraud exception was applicable. The district court based its decision on an in camera review of a document prepared by an Internal Revenue Service Special Agent which summarized the testimony before the grand jury. We have examined the document in camera. It contains evidence of serious crimes committed by Richard Roe and other persons. While it is unclear from the document whether the attorney knew of the criminal activity,* it is clear that the attorney was hired to further the criminal activity. Based on our review of the document, we find that the government has made out a prima facie case that the crime/fraud exception is applicable. See also In re John Doe, 662 F. 2d 1073 (4th Cir. 1981).
We find no due process violation in the procedures used by the district court. In light of the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s order. AFFIRMED.
*
The lawyer’s position is that he did not know. He wishes to appear before the grand jury to clear his name.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Antitrust Grand Jury. Advance Publ'ns, Inc. v. United States, 805 F.2d 155 (6th Cir. 1986)
-
In re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of John DOE, 867 F.2d 539 (9th Cir. 1989)
-
In re Grand Jury Subpoena. United States v. Under Seal, 884 F.2d 124 (4th Cir. 1989)
Authorities Cited
- In re DOE v. United States, 662 F.2d 1073 (4th Cir. 1981)