United States v. Evans
113 F.3d 1457 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The attorney-client privilege is waived for communications made in the presence of a third party who is not an agent of the client or attorney. This waiver occurs even if the third party is a lawyer, if they are present in a non-legal capacity (e.g., as a friend), and the client insists on their presence after being explicitly warned that it could destroy the confidentiality of the communication.
Facts:
- After news reports revealed Alderman Jesse Evans was the target of a federal corruption investigation, his long-time friend John Holden, who was also an attorney and a Chicago police officer, contacted him.
- Holden arranged for Evans to meet with three different criminal defense attorneys to seek legal advice.
- On January 8, 1996, Holden accompanied Evans to a meeting with one of the attorneys, James Koch.
- During the meeting, Koch testified that he expressed concern about Holden's presence, stating that because Holden was there as a friend, their conversation might not be privileged.
- Koch stated that he asked Holden to leave, but Evans, after being warned of the risk to the privilege, said he understood but wanted Holden to remain present.
- Holden gave a conflicting account, testifying that he was present as Evans's 'family lawyer' to advise on counsel selection and that Koch never warned them about waiving the privilege.
Procedural Posture:
- Jesse Evans was indicted in the United States District Court on charges including racketeering and obstruction of justice.
- Prior to trial, the government filed a pretrial motion in limine to admit testimony from attorney James Koch concerning a meeting he had with Evans.
- Evans opposed the motion, claiming the communications from the meeting were protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing to resolve the dispute, where both Koch and another attorney, John Holden, provided conflicting testimony.
- The district court judge granted the government's motion, finding Koch's testimony more credible and ruling that the conversation was not privileged.
- Evans filed an immediate interlocutory appeal of the district court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a client waive the attorney-client privilege for communications with a prospective attorney when a third party is present, if the third party, though also an attorney, is acting as a friend, and the client insists on the third party's presence after being warned that it could negate the privilege?
Opinions:
Majority - Cummings, Circuit Judge
Yes. A client waives the attorney-client privilege under these circumstances. The privilege protects only communications made in confidence, and the presence of a third party who is not an agent of the client or attorney generally destroys that confidence. The central issue was whether Holden was present as Evans's attorney or as a friend. The district court made a credibility determination, finding attorney Koch's testimony—that Holden was present as a friend and that Evans was warned of the waiver—to be truthful, and Holden's testimony to be unbelievable. An appellate court will not overturn a trial judge's credibility determination unless it is clearly erroneous, and the district court's finding here was plausible and not contradicted by other evidence. Even if Evans subjectively believed Holden was acting as his lawyer, that belief became unreasonable once Koch, a prospective attorney, explicitly warned him that Holden's presence in a non-legal capacity would likely waive the privilege and Evans insisted he remain.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the high deference appellate courts give to a trial court's credibility determinations, making such findings exceptionally difficult to challenge. It clarifies that the attorney-client privilege is narrowly construed and the burden of proof rests entirely on the party asserting it. The ruling serves as a critical precedent that a person's status as an attorney is insufficient to protect communications; they must be acting in their professional capacity as a legal advisor for the privilege to apply in a multi-party setting. Furthermore, it establishes that a client's informed decision to proceed with a conversation after being warned about the risks of a third party's presence constitutes a valid waiver of the privilege.
