United States v. Paul E. Horvath, Jr., Robert M. Horvath, and Thomas O'ShaughneSSy

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a communication will not be privileged unless it was “made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal services to the client”
• not applying attorney-client privilege when attorney admitted “he functioned primarily as a courier” of illegally-obtained funds and performed such acts prior to passing bar examination
• “Thus, where the attorney acts merely as a . . . scrivener for the client, or as a business adviser, the privilege is inapplicable.” (internal citations omitted)
• given weight of other evidence, admission of pri- or misconduct evidence harmless error
• “it is well established under common law that confidential communications between an attorney and a client are privileged and not subject to disclosure absent consent of the client.”
• attorney-client privilege applies only to confidential communications made to facilitate legal services, and does not apply where lawyer acts as conduit for client funds, scrivener, or business advisor

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).