United States v. Sindel
53 F.3d 874, 75 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1894, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 9669 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While client identity and fee information are generally not protected by the attorney-client privilege, a 'confidential communications' exception applies, shielding such information from disclosure on IRS Form 8300 if revealing it would necessarily disclose the substance of a confidential communication between the attorney and client.
Facts:
- Attorney Richard Sindel received a cash payment of $53,160 for legal services on behalf of his client, John Doe.
- Sindel also received two separate cash payments of $10,000 each for legal services rendered to his client, Jane Doe.
- Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 60501, which requires reporting of cash transactions over $10,000, Sindel filed IRS Forms 8300 for these payments.
- On the forms, Sindel omitted all identifying information about his clients, John Doe and Jane Doe.
- In an attachment to the forms, Sindel asserted that disclosing the information would violate attorney-client privilege and his ethical duties.
Procedural Posture:
- The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) served a summons on attorney Richard Sindel, demanding the client information he had omitted from the Forms 8300.
- The U.S. government brought an enforcement action in the U.S. District Court to compel compliance with the summons.
- The district court conducted proceedings, including an ex-parte, in-camera hearing for Sindel to present evidence on his clients' circumstances.
- The district court ordered enforcement of the summons, requiring Sindel to disclose the information for both John Doe and Jane Doe.
- The district court stayed its enforcement order pending an appeal.
- Sindel, as the appellant, appealed the district court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 federal common law of attorney-client privilege excuse an attorney from disclosing a client's identity and fee information on IRS Form 8300 when the disclosure would reveal the substance of a confidential communication?
Opinions:
Majority - Morris Sheppard Arnold, Circuit Judge
Yes, the federal common law of attorney-client privilege excuses an attorney from disclosing client information on IRS Form 8300 under a special-circumstance exception where revealing the information would necessarily disclose the substance of a confidential communication. The court held that the general rule is that client identity and fee information are not privileged. However, it recognized several 'special-circumstance' exceptions, including the 'confidential communications' exception. After reviewing evidence in-camera, the court concluded that this exception applied to Jane Doe, as disclosing her identity would reveal the substance of a confidential communication. The exception did not apply to John Doe, as no similar constraint on disclosure was found. The court also rejected the argument that state ethics rules could create an exemption to the federal reporting statute and dismissed constitutional claims under the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments as inapplicable to John Doe's situation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the general rule that client identity and fee information are not privileged, but crucially affirms that the 'special-circumstance' exceptions are not merely theoretical. By applying the confidential communications exception to protect one client's identity but not the other's, the court provides a practical example of the fact-intensive inquiry required. The ruling clarifies that while constitutional challenges to IRS Form 8300 are unlikely to succeed, the common law attorney-client privilege remains a viable, albeit narrow, shield for client identity in specific circumstances where disclosure is tantamount to revealing the client's motivation for seeking legal advice.
