United States v. Rowe
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
96 F.3d 1294 (1996)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Charles Rowe (defendant) was the senior partner at a law firm (defendant). Rowe became concerned that Lee McElravy, an attorney at the firm, was mishandling client funds. Rowe assigned two of the firm’s associate attorneys to investigate McElravy. While investigating McElravy, a grand jury subpoenaed the associates to ask them about their discussions with Rowe regarding McElravy. The associates and Rowe asserted the attorney-client privilege, claiming that the discussions were protected against disclosure because Rowe was the law firm’s attorney. The district court found that the associates were not providing legal services, because they were assigned merely to conduct factfinding for Rowe. As a result, the district court ordered the associates to testify about the discussions. Rowe and the law firm appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kozinski, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.