In a development that no doubt came as a surprise to the many in-house and outside counsel following the case because it involves the attorney-client privilege, the Supreme Court on January 23 dismissed In re Grand Jury following oral argument. It did so on the grounds that certiorari was improvidently granted (often referred to as a “DIG”). Consistent with its usual practice, the Court did not explain its rationale for the DIG. What transpired during oral arguments, however, may offer some insight.

The Court had the rare opportunity to provide guidance on an important privilege issue—the appropriate test for determining whether the attorney-client privilege protects “dual-purpose” communications (i.e., those that have inextricably intertwined business and legal purposes).

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]