In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated September 15, 1983 Marc Rich & Co. A.G., Intervenor-Appellant v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the client need not have succeeded in his criminal or fraudulent scheme for the exception to apply”
• holding that communications seeking legal advice concerning the consequences of certain business decisions were protected by the attorney-client privilege
• holding that the privilege can apply to “drafts of communications the final version of which might eventually be sent to other persons, and as distributed would not be privileged”
• noting that the attorney-client privilege 15 does not “impede disclosure of information except to the extent that disclosure would 16 reveal confidential communications”
• requiring “evidence which, if believed by the fact-finder, would be sufficient to support a finding that the elements of the crime-fraud exception were met”
• citing, inter alia, In re Richard Roe, Inc., 68 F.3d 38, 39-40 (2d Cir.1995) & quoting United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918, 921 (2d Cir.1961)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).