Considerations for In-House Counsel in Wake of U.S. Supreme Court’s Refusal to Address Privileged Treatment of Dual-Purpose Communications
Highlights
The Supreme Court has abandoned its review of a tax law firm’s privilege case meant to address how the attorney-client privilege applies to dual-purpose communications
This decision means the applicable standard will continue to vary by jurisdiction and remain fact-dependent
The Court’s refusal to intervene potentially has critical implications for how in-house and outside counsel communicate with their clients and any non-attorney advisors or consultants
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving a law firm specializing in international tax issues, including the practice of advising clients on the tax consequences of expatriation, raising the alarm regarding whether it would issue an opinion impacting how the attorney-client privilege should apply to “dual-purpose communications” or communications between attorneys and clients that discuss both legal and non-legal business advice. On Jan. 23, the Court threw out the case with a one line per curiam opinion, noting: “The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.”
Keep Up to Date in a Changing World
