United States v. John Doe
2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 25256, 2005 WL 3117202, 429 F.3d 450 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies when a client seeks legal advice with the intent to further a future or ongoing crime, irrespective of the attorney's knowledge of or participation in the client's criminal scheme.
Facts:
- A federal law enforcement officer ('Target') was responsible for coordinating the activities of an informant ('Witness').
- In 1999, Target and Witness jointly consulted an attorney ('Attorney') for legal advice.
- During the consultation, Target asked Attorney how he could invest in Witness's business.
- Target specifically inquired whether he could make the investment in his wife's name to conceal his connection to it.
- Such an investment by Target, an experienced federal agent, in his informant's business would constitute a criminal violation of federal conflict-of-interest statutes.
- In March 2000, after the legal consultation, Target proceeded to invest in Witness's business and began receiving weekly payments.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury investigating a federal law enforcement officer ('Target') subpoenaed Target's attorney ('Attorney') to testify.
- Attorney invoked the attorney-client privilege and filed a motion to quash the subpoena in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
- The District Court granted the motion to quash, concluding that the crime-fraud exception to the privilege did not apply.
- The Government, as the appellant, appealed the District Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third 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 the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege apply based solely on the client's intent to use legal advice to further a future crime, even if the attorney is unaware of the client's criminal purpose?
Opinions:
Majority - Rosenn, Circuit Judge
Yes. The crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege is triggered by the client's intent to further a criminal or fraudulent act, regardless of the attorney's knowledge or complicity. The focus is on the client's state of mind, as the privilege belongs to the client and is forfeited when abused. The exception applies when a client knowingly seeks legal counsel to advance a continuing or future crime. The District Court erred by improperly focusing on whether the attorney's advice actually assisted the crime, rather than on the client's intent at the time of the consultation. Here, the government made a prima facie showing of Target's criminal intent, as an experienced federal agent asking how to conceal a patently illegal investment makes it implausible that he was unaware of the illegality. Therefore, the privilege is pierced, and the attorney may be compelled to testify.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the crime-fraud exception is a client-centered inquiry, meaning the client's intent to abuse the attorney-client relationship is the sole determinant for forfeiting the privilege. This lowers the evidentiary burden on the government, as it does not need to prove the attorney's complicity or awareness, nor that the legal advice was ultimately successful in furthering the crime. By focusing exclusively on the client's state of mind, the ruling makes it easier for prosecutors to pierce the privilege and obtain crucial evidence from attorneys whose clients sought to use their services for illicit purposes.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. John Doe