By Edward McIntyre

A Central District of California grand jury issued subpoenas to a company and its lawyers related to a criminal investigation of the company’s owner, also a client of the lawyers. The subpoenas sought documents and communications related to that criminal investigation, the target of which was the company’s owner. The company and the lawyers produced some documents, but withheld others based on assertions of the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. Prosecutors pressed the issue. The district court (Hon. John Kronstadt) determined that the withheld documents were not protected by any privilege or were discoverable under the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. The company and the law firm disagreed with the court’s rulings and continued to withhold the disputed documents. The court then held the lawyers and the company in contempt because they failed to comply with grand jury subpoenas.  Read More

Despite the unprecedented events occurring since, many of us still remember March 2019 when it was made public that “Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III delivered his Report of the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election to the then-Attorney General of the United States, William P. Barr.”

It is no secret that trial attorneys must navigate ethical minefields as they collect information from their clients, as they engage in discovery, and as they present evidence to judges and juries.

Sparking intense controversy, in 2016 the American Bar Association (“ABA”) amended Model Rule 8.4 to add paragraph (g), making it professional misconduct to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.”