Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffattorneyinjunctionmotioncomplianceattorney-client privilege
contractplaintiffattorneyinjunctionmotioncomplianceattorney-client privilege

Related Cases

Chrispens v. Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc., 257 Kan. 745, 897 P.2d 104
View Case »
In re Cendant Corp. Litigation, 264 F.3d 201, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,521, 50 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1058
View Case »
In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 57 USLW 2212
View Case »
Institutional Labor Advisors, LLC v. Allied Resources, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2014 WL 4211196
View Case »
Mozzochi v. Beck, 204 Conn. 490, 529 A.2d 171
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Doe v. Wachovia Corp., 268 F.Supp.2d 627, 92 A.F.T.R.2d 2003-5125, 2003-2 USTC P 50,558

Facts

The plaintiffs, clients of Wachovia, used the bank to facilitate tax advice concerning investment strategies provided by the law firm Jenkens & Gilchrist and accounting firm KPMG. The IRS served an administrative summons on Wachovia seeking documents related to potentially abusive tax shelters, including investor lists. Wachovia initially believed it did not possess the requested information but later determined compliance was necessary, leading to the plaintiffs' action for a temporary restraining order.

The plaintiffs, clients of Wachovia, used the bank to facilitate tax advice concerning investment strategies provided by the law firm Jenkens & Gilchrist and accounting firm KPMG. The IRS served an administrative summons on Wachovia seeking documents related to potentially abusive tax shelters, including investor lists. Wachovia initially believed it did not possess the requested information but later determined compliance was necessary, leading to the plaintiffs' action for a temporary restraining order.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the investor lists held by Wachovia were protected by attorney-client privilege or any other form of confidentiality.

The main legal issue was whether the investor lists held by Wachovia were protected by attorney-client privilege or any other form of confidentiality.

Rule

The court applied the principles of attorney-client privilege, determining that such privilege only exists if there is a clear attorney-client relationship and that the communication was made for the purpose of securing legal advice.

The court applied the principles of attorney-client privilege, determining that such privilege only exists if there is a clear attorney-client relationship and that the communication was made for the purpose of securing legal advice.

Analysis

The court analyzed the relationships between the taxpayers, Wachovia, J & G, and KPMG, concluding that no attorney-client relationship existed between the taxpayers and J & G or KPMG. The agreements indicated that J & G and Wachovia were acting as independent contractors, and thus, the communications were not confidential. The court found that the IRS summons required disclosure of information that did not fall under any privilege.

The court analyzed the relationships between the taxpayers, Wachovia, J & G, and KPMG, concluding that no attorney-client relationship existed between the taxpayers and J & G or KPMG. The agreements indicated that J & G and Wachovia were acting as independent contractors, and thus, the communications were not confidential. The court found that the IRS summons required disclosure of information that did not fall under any privilege.

Conclusion

The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and application for a preliminary injunction, ruling that the investor lists were not privileged and that Wachovia must comply with the IRS summons.

The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and application for a preliminary injunction, ruling that the investor lists were not privileged and that Wachovia must comply with the IRS summons.

Who won?

Wachovia prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiffs could not establish an attorney-client privilege regarding the information sought by the IRS.

Wachovia prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiffs could not establish an attorney-client privilege regarding the information sought by the IRS.

You must be