United States v. LeCroy
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
348 F. Supp. 2d 375 (2004)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
LeCroy and Snell (defendants) were charged with wire fraud for presenting a false invoice from an attorney to their employer, J.P. Morgan Chase (JP). LeCroy, Snell, and JP were all subject to grand-jury subpoenas. As a result, LeCroy and Snell were questioned by JP’s counsel, Scott Campbell. JP, LeCroy, and Snell orally agreed to a joint-defense agreement (JDA). Snell and LeCroy were interviewed various times by JP counsel. Eventually, Campbell advised LeCroy and Snell to retain individual counsel, which they did separately. JP agreed to pay their legal fees. JP retained outside defense counsel, Dodds. LeCroy and Snell believed the first several meetings with JP counsel were protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege. However, after Dodds became involved, Dodds clearly warned LeCroy and Snell that JP would turn over interview notes taken by JP counsel and corresponding memoranda if the government (plaintiff) pressed for the notes and memoranda (documents). Despite this fact, LeCroy and Snell participated in further interviews with JP counsel, both with and without their personal attorneys present. Subsequently, JP decided to turn over documents of the meetings between JP counsel and LeCroy and Snell at the request of the government. LeCroy and Snell asserted attorney-client privilege with respect to the documents and requested an order protecting the documents.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Baylson, 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.