Monthly Archives: February 2013

The Attorney-Client Privilege

Posted on by

I usually write about Asset Protection, Tax Planning and Financial Privacy, so I thought I would discuss a somewhat related topic; the Attorney-Client Privilege. The Attorney-Client Privilege is a legal concept that protects certain communications between a client and an attorney and keeps those communications confidential. This privilege is “owned” by the client, and it protects the communications even if the client is only a prospective client.

attorney-client-privilege-tulsa-oklahoma-lawyer

For a communication to be considered privileged (that is protected from disclosure) three (3) things must be established:

  1. The holder of the privilege is a client or a prospective client;
  2. The communication is made confidentially with a licensed attorney or subordinate; and
  3. The communication is made with the intent securing legal advice and/or representation.

This privilege is one of the most important concepts in Western legal studies. However, it is also one of the most misunderstood issues even among lawyers.

As with all rules, it is in the exceptions that we find the heart of the matter.

The communication must be with an attorney. There is no such thing as an Accountant-Client Privilege. If you describe a troubling situation regarding past tax returns with an attorney, the attorney will most likely be required to keep the communications confidential. Even upon subpoena the attorney would be required to refuse to answer questions. However, an accountant in the same situation may be required to report what the client said to the authorities as the accountant’s foremost duty is to the taxing authority.

A communication is only privileged if it was intended to be confidential. Speaking in front of 3rd parties destroys the privilege, so attorneys and clients should avoid those elevator conversations. No one wants to hear what you are saying anyway!

The communication is privileged, not the facts. So if you toss a bloody knife onto your attorney’s desk and ask, “What should I do if I just killed my wife with that knife?” the question is privileged as is the possible answer, but the fact that you had a bloody knife in your possession is not protected.

The privilege does not apply in the face of an ongoing or prospective criminal activity or conspiracy. Telling your attorney about your criminal activities in the past may be protected, but if you describe how you intend to continue with such activities the attorney may have a duty to the courts to inform the authorities. A very troubling situation to be in if you are an attorney. If the attorney is not careful he may be considered an accessory or even a co-conspirator to a crime if he fails to disclose the information, or he may be held in violation of his duty to the client if he discloses it inappropriately.

The privilege can also be waived by the client. Remember, the privilege is “owned” by the client. If the client chooses to disclose the content of the communication that is privileged, well it is not privileged anymore. Now this raises an interesting issue (at least to me): to what degree does a partial disclosure of privileged communications waive the remaining undisclosed communications? Under some rules partial disclosure by a client waives the entire privilege, and under other rules partial disclosure only serves as a narrow waiver regarding the exact facts that were disclosed. For instance, let us say that the client files a grievance/complaint against the lawyer. Obviously, the lawyer has the right to defend himself. In Texas, this waiver of privilege is limited to those communications that serve to defend the attorney’s interests, and does not serve to waive the privilege in regards to other forums. However, if the client discloses confidential communications in open court before the Federal Courts, this disclosure may result in a broad and universal waiver of ALL communications between the client and the attorney. OUCH!

The Attorney-Client Privilege is a powerful right that gives people the ability to speak candidly to their attorney even if they do not end up retaining the attorney. But it is not as simple as some believe, and it certainly does not cover everything you say to an attorney. As always, caution is the rule!

The Philosophy of Learned Hand

Posted on by

Learned Hand was perhaps one of the greatest legal minds in American History. Although not a Supreme Court judge, his analysis on and off the bench influenced a generation of legal scholarship. And what a fantastic name!!!!

In a famous ruling concerning the duty of the individual regarding the law, he clarified the traditional rule that people do not have a duty to go beyond the written meaning of the law. That is you should only have to guide your actions by the rules laid out by the law, and not by the unwritten intentions of the lawmaker or your own subjective intentions. In Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F. 2d 809, 810 (2nd Cir, 1934), aff’d 293 U.S. 465 (1935) he stated that:

 “[A] transaction, otherwise within an exception of the tax law, does not lose its immunity, because it is actuated by a desire to avoid, or, if one choose, to evade, taxation. Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.

“Over and over again Courts have said there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich and poor, and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands. Taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.”

In this ruling Learned Hand made it clear that the government has no right to expect taxpayers and citizens go beyond the mandates of the law and do what is best for the state. It is enough if what they do is within the technical boundaries of the law. The individual need not guide every action by the consideration of what is best for the government.

This was the basic sentiment that drove the American Revolution and the Founders: The Government is the Servant of the Citizens, not the Master.

Sadly, our sentiments have changed. Contrast Learned Hand’s statement with the “sham transaction doctrine” as approved by the court in Jacobson v. CM, 915 F. 2d 832 (2nd Cir, 1990):

“Transactions that are entered into solely for the purpose of obtaining tax benefits and that are without economic substance are considered shams for Federal income tax purposes and purported indebtedness associated therewith will not be recognized…. [A] sham transaction [is] a transaction that is lacking in objective economic reality and that has no economic significance beyond expected tax benefits.”

No longer is working within the law enough. No longer is it enough to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’. Now the taxpayer/citizen must act with subjective intention of doing what is best for the government; paying taxes. Now the government has the right to not only examine WHAT you did, but they can now examine WHY you did it!

As World War II was drawing to an end, and Learned Hand looked back on his generation and the terrible destruction that had taken place, he wrote:

 “What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.” Learned Hand, P. 190, The Spirit of Liberty (1944).