United States v. Adlman
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
134 F.3d 1194 (1998)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Monroe Adlman (defendant) was an attorney and executive at Sequa Corporation, a manufacturer with two subsidiaries. Sequa considered merging the two subsidiaries, which would result in large losses and a large tax refund. Adlman expected this would lead to litigation with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), so he asked an external accountant and lawyer to prepare an evaluation of the tax implications of the proposed merger. The completed memorandum included detailed legal analysis of potential IRS claims, suggested potential legal strategies to respond, and predicted the likely results of litigation. The memorandum also made recommendations regarding the best way to handle the restructuring transactions. Sequa did restructure pursuant to the recommendations of the memorandum, which resulted in a multimillion-dollar tax refund. The IRS subsequently audited Sequa and subpoenaed the report. Adlman refused to turn over the memorandum, claiming protection under the work-product doctrine, and the IRS petitioned to enforce the subpoena. The district court found that the memorandum was not protected under the work-product doctrine and granted the motion to enforce. Adlman appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Leval, J.)
Dissent (Kearse, 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.