UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND FRANK M. ODOM, SPECIAL AGENT INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
MITCHELL ARONSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 attorney-client privilege does not protect documents that by their nature contemplate disclosure to third parties.
Appellant argued that certain documents regarding property disposition were protected by attorney-client privilege. The district court disagreed, find…
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 Attorney-Client Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Aronson argues on appeal that the district court erroneously concluded that the attorney-client privilege did not protect certain documents regarding the disposition of real estate and other property. We reject Aronson’s argument. The district court correctly held that such documents — which by their very nature contemplate disclosure to third parties and Aronson having failed to carry his burden of proving otherwise— are not within the scope of the attorney-client privilege, 610 F.Supp. 217 (S.D.Fla.1985). United States v. McDonald, 313 F. 2d 832, 835 (2d Cir.1963). See also United States v. Pipkins, 528 F. 2d 559, 563 (5th Cir.) (attorney-client privilege inapplicable to “information that the client intends his attorney to impart to others”), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 952, 96 S.Ct. 3177, 49 L.Ed.2d 1191 (1976).1
Aronson’s other arguments on appeal have no merit and warrant no discussion. The district court properly applied the law, and its findings of fact are not clearly erroneous.
AFFIRMED.
. In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), this court adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Id. at 1209.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Grand Jury Subpoena. Appeal of United States, 831 F.2d 225 (11th Cir. 1987)…ecords of property transactions including but not limited to closing statements [and] contracts to purchase. ” These records are not protected by the attorney-client privilege, because they lack a “confidential nature.” See United States v. Aronson, 781 F. 2d 1580, 1581 (11th Cir. 1986); see also United States v. McDonald, 313 F. 2d 832, 835 (2d Cir.1963) (no attorney-client privilege where subpoena sought “copies of closing statements and sales contracts”). Similarly, the subpoena at issue in the present ca…
-
David v. MacNaughton and Virginia R. MacNaughton, 888 F.2d 418 (6th Cir. 1989)…plaintiff’s power to produce. Moreover, the records of the stock restrictions were not within the scope of any attorney-client privilege, as it was information that the client intended the attorney to impart to others. See United States v. Aronson, 781 F. 2d 1580 (11th Cir.1986) (per curiam); United States v. (Under Seal), 748 F. 2d 871 (4th Cir.1984); United States v. Davis, 636 F. 2d 1028 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 862, 102 S.Ct. 320, 70 L.Ed.2d 162 (1982); cf. In re Grand Jury Empanelled March…
-
United States v. Goodman, Dunberg & Hochman, P.A., 660 F. Supp. 929 (S.D. Fla. 1987)…respondent’s client would be the last link to the institution of criminal charges. See, In re: Grand Jury Proceedings (Robert Twist, Sr.), 689 F.2d 1351 (11th Cir.1982); United States v. Aronson, 610 F.Supp. 217 (S.D.Fla.1985), affirmed 781 F.2d 1580 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Dennis Sheppard and Marvin & Shepard, Case No. 86-1987-CIV-SCOTT (S.D.Fla., 12-17-86). Moreover, respondent’s claim that the mere disclosure of his client’s identity constitutes a confidential communication, i…
Authorities Cited
- Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
- Austin v. United States, 426 U.S. 952 (U.S. 1976)
- Pipkins v. United States, 426 U.S. 952 (U.S. 1976)
- United States v. Pipkins, 528 F.2d 559 (5th Cir. 1976)
- United States v. McDONALD, 313 F.2d 832 (2d Cir. 1963)
- United States v. Aronson, 610 F. Supp. 217 (S.D. Fla. 1985)