In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, Detroit, Michigan, August, 1977. In the Matter of Lawrence S. Jackier

570 F.2d 562, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12396
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 28, 1978
Docket77-1559
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 570 F.2d 562 (In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, Detroit, Michigan, August, 1977. In the Matter of Lawrence S. Jackier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, Detroit, Michigan, August, 1977. In the Matter of Lawrence S. Jackier, 570 F.2d 562, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12396 (6th Cir. 1978).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Edmund W. Faudman, former Vice President of Arnolds, Inc., appeals a District Court denial of his motion to quash a grand jury subpoena. The grand jury subpoenaed Lawrence Jackier, attorney for Arnolds, Inc., during an investigation of federal Medicaid fraud involving alleged kickback arrangements with nursing homes. Mr. Faudman has been told he is a target of the grand jury investigation. Arnolds, Inc. has waived its attorney-client privilege and has authorized Mr. Jackier to cooperate in the grand jury investigation. Mr. Faudman, however, asserts that an attorney-client privilege continues to protect his communications with Mr. Jackier. The issue, therefore, is whether Mr. Faudman can assert an attorney-client privilege despite the waiver by the corporation.

The District Court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, 434 F.Supp. 648 (E.D. Mich.1977) denied the motion to quash the subpoena, emphasizing that the evidence showed that Mr. Jackier’s client was the corporation alone, that Mr. Faudman acted as an officer of the corporation in communicating with Mr. Jackier, and that Mr. Jackier did not represent Mr. Faudman as an individual. The district court held that the privilege was the corporation’s and that, not having clearly claimed a personal privilege at the time he communicated with the corporation counsel, Mr. Faudman could not assert that privilege later. For the reasons set forth in the District Court’s opinion, we affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

MacKenzie-Childs LLC v. MacKenzie-Childs
262 F.R.D. 241 (W.D. New York, 2009)
Ross v. Cty Memphis
Sixth Circuit, 2005
United States v. Dakota
197 F.3d 821 (Sixth Circuit, 1999)
Picard Chemical Inc. Profit Sharing Plan v. Perrigo Co.
951 F. Supp. 679 (W.D. Michigan, 1996)
Innes v. Howell Corporation
76 F.3d 702 (Sixth Circuit, 1996)
Innes v. Howell Corp.
76 F.3d 702 (Sixth Circuit, 1996)
In Re Cumberland Investment Corp.
120 B.R. 627 (D. Rhode Island, 1990)
Matter of Michigan Boiler and Engineering Co.
87 B.R. 465 (E.D. Michigan, 1988)
In Re Standard Financial Management Corp.
77 B.R. 324 (D. Massachusetts, 1987)
Danning v. Donovan (In Re Carter)
62 B.R. 1007 (C.D. California, 1986)
Odmark v. Westside Bancorporation, Inc.
636 F. Supp. 552 (W.D. Washington, 1986)
Baer v. Abel
637 F. Supp. 343 (W.D. Washington, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
570 F.2d 562, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-grand-jury-proceedings-detroit-michigan-august-1977-in-the-ca6-1978.