Note by Alan Stone
In April 1984, the federal government instituted grand jury proceedings to investigate possible violations of federal fraud, racketeering, and obstruction of justice statutes by the defendant Synanon Church. This investigation had been prompted by the government's discovery of information that indicated that Synanon had destroyed evidence and used altered and perjured evidence in the litigation of two civil suits, Synanon Church v. United States (‘Tax Case‘) and Synanon v. Bernstein, which Synanon had filed. On May 17, 1984 the government subpoenaed James Roe and John Doe, the attorneys who had represented Synanon in both civil cases, to testify before the grand jury regarding Synanon's abuse of the discovery process. The attorneys invoked the attorney-client privilege and refused to testify. On the following day, the government filed an amended motion to compel testimony based on the ‘crime-fraud exception‘ to the attorney-client privilege. The district court found that the government had presented prima facie evidence of an ongoing fraud, that there was a relationship between the communications at issue and the prima facie violation, and that the crime-fraud exception therefore applied. In the noted case, the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, explicitly rejecting the suggested requirement that the government be made to show specifically that the client intended to further a crime or fraud by consulting the attorney. In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
About the Author
Alan Stone.
Citation
60 Tul. L. Rev. 1061 (1986)