In Re Sealed Case

Facts

The grand jury was investigating violations of federal election laws. The appellant is a corporation (D). D refused to produce two subpoenaed documents and was held in contempt. One document was a memo from a D vice president to the president with a copy to general counsel. The memo reflected the information of a meeting the VP had with the general counsel about campaign finance laws. The other document was a memo written by general counsel at the request of outside counsel. Both were withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The district court examined both in camera and without deciding if they were privileged ordered them produced. The court reasoned that the crime-fraud exception applied. The facts were that D had already maxed out its contributions to a candidate for federal office and the VP called two individuals who did business with D and asked them to contribute to the former candidate to help him retire his campaign debts. The individuals and their wives made the contributions. Eventually, the VP made out company checks to the individuals to reimburse them for their contributions for both the amounts as well as additional taxes they would incur from reporting this income. The government contends that the solicitation may have been legal, but this use of corporate funds was illegal. The second memo details actions took by D to correct the VP’s use of corporate funds to reimburse the donors. D appealed this ruling and a ruling that the VP had to testify about a meeting between him and D’s president and its general counsel where the general counsel gave legal advice about federal election laws. The VP had been granted immunity but invoked the attorney-client privilege on behalf of D. The district court ruled that crime-fraud applied. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.