In re: Subpoenaed Grand Jury Witness
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
171 F.3d 511 (1999)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Tom Hagen (defendant) represented at least 21 defendants in various state gambling cases. A federal grand jury issued a subpoena requiring Hagen testify before the grand jury and produce records naming any person or entity who paid legal fees for his gambling clients. Hagen filed a motion to quash the subpoena. In a closed district court hearing, Hagen argued that complying with the subpoena would lead to the identification of people who sought his legal advice. Hagen argued his clients were facing federal indictment or at least being named as unindicted coconspirators in the grand jury proceeding for which he was subpoenaed. Enforcing the subpoena would require Hagen to testify against his own clients regarding communications protected by the attorney-client privilege. Hagen also argued that the evidence of who paid his clients’ legal bills would link them to the gambling defendants, providing the government with the information it needed to indict them. The district court denied the motion to quash, holding that the material requested in the subpoena was not protected by attorney-client privilege. Hagen appealed and filed a four-page affidavit that was sealed as part of the appellate record.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Evans, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.