United States v. Rowe
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
96 F.3d 1294 (9th Cir. 1996)
Charles Rowe (defendant), a law firm's senior partner, grew concerned that attorney Lee McElravy was mishandling client funds and assigned two associate attorneys to investigate. A grand jury subpoenaed the associates about their discussions with Rowe regarding the investigation, and Rowe and the associates asserted attorney-client privilege, but the district court found the associates were not providing legal services since they were merely factfinding, and ordered them to testify. Rowe and the firm appealed.
Whether the attorney-client privilege protects an attorney's factfinding investigation into a colleague's conduct when that factfinding is undertaken to help the investigating attorney render legal advice to the firm.