ARTICLE
23 January 2023

A Lighthearted Look At "Notable" Quotes From In Re Grand Jury Oral Arguments

HK
Holland & Knight

Contributor

Holland & Knight is a global law firm with nearly 2,000 lawyers in offices throughout the world. Our attorneys provide representation in litigation, business, real estate, healthcare and governmental law. Interdisciplinary practice groups and industry-based teams provide clients with access to attorneys throughout the firm, regardless of location.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Jan. 9, 2023, in the In re Grand Jury case. Despite the nondescript title, the stakes in the case are stratospheric for the future...
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Jan. 9, 2023, in the In re Grand Jury case. Despite the nondescript title, the stakes in the case are stratospheric for the future of the attorney-client privilege.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving the standards for evaluating attorney-client privilege where communication has legal and non-legal purposes. For brief background, a federal district court held a law firm, whose name is sealed, in contempt for its failure to produce certain documents, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld that ruling. According to the Ninth Circuit's opinion summary, "The panel affirmed the district court's orders holding appellants, a company and a law firm, in contempt for failure to comply with grand jury subpoenas related to a criminal investigation, in a case in which the district court ruled that certain dual-purpose communications were not privileged because the 'primary purpose' of the documents was to obtain tax advice, not legal advice."

Rather than joining the chorus of speculators on the outcome, which the authors have been doing internally for months, we thought a top 10 list of notable, out-of-context and out-of-order quotations (plus a bonus quote!) might be a more enjoyable addition to your inbox.

Without further ado:

10. Justice Elena Kagan: "[T]here's no particular evidence of confusion, nor is there any particular evidence of chill."

9. Mr. Daniel Levin (counsel for petitioner): "It's not a bad thing to talk to a lawyer."

8. Ms. Masha Hansford (on behalf of the respondent/U.S. government): "The public has a right to every man's evidence."

7. Justice Kagan: "I have to say just as you have one case, so too you have one ... secondary authority ... ."

6. Ms. Hansford: "[W]e are fine with ... a tie goes to the runner rule ... ."

5. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: "The court is not doing math."

4. Justice Samuel Alito (to one party): "So it's a change -- you've changed your position?"

3. Justice Alito (to the other party): "I think you're walking away from your argument too."

2. Justice Neil Gorsuch: "I am really confused now."

1. Justice Kagan: "I'm wondering if you would just comment on ... the ancient legal principle, if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

ARTICLE
23 January 2023

A Lighthearted Look At "Notable" Quotes From In Re Grand Jury Oral Arguments

United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Contributor

Holland & Knight is a global law firm with nearly 2,000 lawyers in offices throughout the world. Our attorneys provide representation in litigation, business, real estate, healthcare and governmental law. Interdisciplinary practice groups and industry-based teams provide clients with access to attorneys throughout the firm, regardless of location.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More