TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

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

In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Detroit, Mich., August, 1977. In the Matter of Lawrence S. Jackier, 570 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1978)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 28, 1978
Docket
No. 77-1559
Judges
Lively, Engel, Merritt
Citations
570 F.2d 5621978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12396

Opinion — Per Curiam

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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 27 cases

View all citing references →
1978: 11979: 11981: 41983: 11985: 11986: 51987: 11988: 11990: 11993: 11995: 11996: 21997: 21999: 22005: 22009: 119782026peak 1986 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Odmark v. Westside Bancorporation, Inc.636 F. Supp. 552 (W.D. Wash. 1986)
  2. In re OPM Leasing Services, Inc.13 B.R. 54 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1981)
  3. Baer v. Abel637 F. Supp. 343 (W.D. Wash. 1986)
  4. Herlancer Ross v. City of Memphis, Walter Crews and Alfred Gray, Individually423 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2005)
  5. Picard Chemical Inc. Profit Sharing Plan v. Perrigo Co.951 F. Supp. 679 (W.D. Mich. 1996)
  6. In re O. P. M. Leasing Services, Inc.13 B.R. 64 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Detroit, Mich. Aug., 434 F. Supp. 648 (E.D. Mich. 1977) 28

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list