Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: In re Grand Jury (United States Supreme Court)


As with many labor & employment law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


On October 6th, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition to hear an appeal of the In re Grand Jury case from the Ninth Circuit.  This particular case asks the Court to consider the standard that governs the attorney-client privilege in “dual purpose” communications.  For the context of this case, “dual purpose” communications include when communications are made for both legal and non legal advice.

The Ninth Circuit has joined with the Fifth Circuit to hold that the “primary purpose” test governs the analysis.  Under this test, it is up for a court to determine if the primary purpose of the communication is to provide legal advice.  If this is found to be the case, the communication is protected by the attorney client privilege and protected from disclosure.  If this is not found to be the case, the privilege does not apply and the entire communication is subject to disclosure.

However, the D.C. Court of Appeals has held that a dual purpose communication can fall under the attorney-client privilege so long as legal advice presents a significant purpose for the communication, even if it is not the primary purpose.  (Notably, Justice Kavanaugh was on the bench in 2014 when the D.C. Court of Appeals issued that ruling.)

Readers might consider the “primary purpose” test and the “significant purpose” test to be nearly identical.  While a 30,000 foot view of the matter might lead you to this conclusion, the D.C. Court’s test is more expansive while the “primary purpose” test has been considered to be too uncertain (given that many attorneys provide clients with both legal and business advice in communications.)

Oral arguments are set for January 9, 2023.


For additional information:  https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/in-re-grand-jury/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more