Navigating Twin Goal Communications After SCOTUS (Nearly) Weighs in on Legal professional-Shopper Privilege: 5 Sensible Ideas for Healthcare Attorneys


Inside and out of doors healthcare counsel ought to know that the best way they information shoppers via authorized and enterprise points may have to alter based mostly on a current Ninth Circuit case governing the protections afforded to attorney-client communications, In re Grand Jury.[1] The next replace and insights will enable you to mitigate in opposition to the danger of attorney-client emails being produced in litigation:

  • Authorized and Non-Authorized (“Twin-Goal”) Communications are Widespread Throughout Healthcare
  • There’s a Circuit-Break up on What Check Applies to Twin-Goal Communications
  • The Supreme Court docket Balks and the Ninth Circuit Reinforces the Major Goal Check
  • 5 Sensible Ideas
  • Closing Ideas

(A) Twin-Goal Communications with Authorized and Non-Authorized Parts are Widespread Throughout Healthcare

Communications between attorneys and shoppers should be for the aim of giving or receiving authorized recommendations for attorney-client privilege use. A dual-purpose communication is one which has each an authorized and an enterprise goal. For a lot of healthcare attorneys, these kinds of dual-purpose communications are extra widespread than communications involving solely purely “authorized” recommendations.

For instance, think about doctor compensation. This matter time includes an authorized angle, equivalent to Stark Legislation or Anti-Kickback compliance, or state fraud and abuse legislation issues. Nonetheless, it nearly all the time includes an enterprise angle too. For instance, what particular deal phrases are the events negotiating? Are bonuses concerned? Will funds contain estimation and reconciliation? On what schedule? And so forth. Healthcare attorneys particularly ought to think about if they should modify their method on twin communications given the current caselaw within the Ninth Circuit (and SCOTUS’ subsequent choice to not make clear which customary applies).

(B) There’s a Circuit-Break up on What Check Applies to Twin-Goal Communications

Earlier than explaining what to think about in drafting twin goal communications, we wish to make clear that the take look at that applies to them varies by circuit. Particularly, there are three key checks:

  • “Major Goal” Check: Whether or not the first goal of the communication is to present or obtain an authorized recommendation, versus an enterprise or tax recommendation. That is the narrowest take a look at, adopted in some type by the Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits.[2]
  • “As a result of Of” Check: Whether or not it may possibly pretty be stated that the doc was created due to anticipated litigation, and wouldn’t have been created in considerably related type however for the prospect of that litigation, adopted by the Ninth Circuit with respect to “legal professional work product” privilege.[3]
  • “Vital Goal” Check: Whether or not acquiring or offering authorized recommendations was a major goal of the communication, which means one among the numerous functions of the communication. That is the broadest take look at, adopted by the D.C. Circuit and a few district courts in no less than the company’s inner investigation context.[4]

(C) The Supreme Court docket Balks on In re Grand Jury; Ninth Circuit Reinforces the Major Goal Check

The state of affairs introduced by In re Grand Jury concerned a legislation agency specializing in tax legislation that was held in contempt for refusing to adjust to grand jury subpoenas focusing on paperwork associated to a consumer’s tax expatriation on the premise of such paperwork being topic to attorney-client privilege. The district courtroom dominated that sure paperwork withheld by the topic legislation agency wasn’t protected by the attorney-client privilege as a result of the first goal of these twin goal communications concerned tax recommendation, not authorized recommendation.

On enchantment to the Ninth Circuit, the legislation agency argued for the appliance of the broader “due to” take a look at, sometimes utilized to work-product safety. In contemplating this take a look at, the Ninth Circuit famous for the separate coverage objectives of every doctrine, Particularly, work-product safety goals to protect equity within the adversarial course of and the attorney-client privilege goals to advertise open conversations between attorneys and shoppers.

The Ninth Circuit declined to increase the broader “due to” taking a look at to attorney-client privilege and as an alternative adopted the “major goal” take a look at. The courtroom reasoned that the “major goal” take a look at is healthier aligned with the coverage objectives of the attorney-client privilege, in addition to the widespread legislation understanding that the scope of the privilege is outlined by the aim of the communication.

Whereas the Ninth Circuit adopted the “major goal” take a look at the place there’s a clearly predominant goal, it left open whether or not courts ought to ask if authorized recommendation was the major goal or merely a major goal when twin privilege communications current probably equal authorized and non-legal functions. For instance, in In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2014), the D.C. Circuit had adopted a “major goal” take a look to find out whether or not twin goal communications associated with an organization’s inner investigation (and evaluation of its compliance with regulatory necessities) had been protected by the attorney-client privilege. In its In re Grand Jury choice, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that it could be unimaginable to discern whether or not communication was for authorized or non-legal functions, like the interior investigation in Kellogg that sought authorized and enterprise recommendation.[5] Nonetheless, the courtroom declined to succeed in that subject as a result of the communications earlier than the courtroom concerned tax recommendation – a non-legal goal.

Many had hoped the Supreme Court docket would resolve the circuit cut up and supply readability on the take a look at that applies for dual-purpose communications when it agreed to overview the Ninth Circuit’s choice in In re Grand Jury.[6] Nonetheless, on January 23, 2023— simply two weeks after oral arguments—SCOTUS dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. For now, attorneys ought to concentrate on the take a look at what applies within the jurisdictions and the place they apply after they give twin goal communications.

(D) 5 Sensible Recommendations on Twin-Goal Communications Given Present Legislation

  1. Be Aware in Structuring and Delivering Twin-Goal Communications: Attorneys ought to think about whether or not to separate authorized recommendations and non-legal recommendations in giving consumer steering. This might imply sending two separate communications or clearly dividing the communication into components with clear headings indicating every part’s goal.
  2. Label Your Emails and Paperwork if Applicable: Embrace “Legal professional-Shopper Privilege” headlines in your communications offering authorized recommendations, however, keep away from the label when speaking non-legal recommendations. If there’s any foundation to consider litigation could also be forthcoming, additionally, embrace a “Work-Product Safety” label. The foregoing labels must be used solely when acceptable – merely blanketing all steering with these labels won’t improve the software of any privileges in litigation.
  3. Contemplate the Goal of the Communication: Start communications with “for the needs of authorized recommendation” or clarify to your consumer the worth in starting their communications with the identical characterization. Be aware that you could be must later justify how no less than a major goal of the communication was to get an authorized recommendation, if not the major goal.
  4. Set Up Work-Product Safety: Embrace references to and/or the premise for any perception of potential litigation in your communications to justify work-product safety.
  5. Contemplate a Telephone Name: Whereas telephone conversations could seem old-school, they continue to be well-suited to speaking steering on delicate points.

(E) Closing Ideas

Many are dissatisfied that SCOTUS failed to supply readability on the checks surrounding the appliance of attorney-client privilege protections to twin goal communications. The Ninth Circuit opinion leaves open the likelihood that Kellogg’s important goal take a look at may apply in some cases however presents little extra steering on the specifics of that potential software.

A trial courtroom’s dilemma in deciding the scope of the attorney-client privilege in twin goal communications was made clear throughout the oral argument. Throughout oral arguments earlier than SCOTUS, the Justices seemed to be involved with the potential for abuse below the numerous goal take a look at. This is smart contemplating the circumstances of In re Grand Jury: regular tax return preparation recommendation (which typically is just not privileged even when it comes from a legal professional) was blended with authorized recommendation on tips on how to navigate sure tax legal guidelines.

For instance, Chief Justice John Roberts requested an accountant who completes a sophisticated return. His work wouldn’t be privileged. However, then the shape is proven to a lawyer who identifies objects which can be “type of iffy.” Would the return then be privileged? Counsel for the legislation agency replied in the affirmative, prompting Justice Clarence Thomas to ask: “Is there any non-trivial position {that a} lawyer performs within the instance the chief gave that doesn’t meet your take a look at?” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described a hypothetical assembly that everybody agrees is over “an enterprise choice … however the lawyer [in the room] provides some extent. And also you say, so long as it’s an authentic level, that’s ok to require that all the factors be privileged.… Why shouldn’t I fear that utilizing your take a look at now, we’re going from one excessive to the opposite?”

Gamesmanship seemed to be a serious concern for each SCOTUS and the Ninth Circuit. To the extent, any authorized recommendation is supplied with the clearly non-legal recommendation, and the higher the quantity or significance of the non-legal recommendation, the extra a courtroom may have no drawback making use of the first goal take a look at to keep away from the abuse of the privilege. Nonetheless, in cases like Kellogg the place the 2 functions are tougher to untangle or pretty rank, a courtroom might take the chance left open by In re Grand Jury to use the numerous goal take a look at.


[1] This evaluation addresses federal privilege and evidentiary issues; state legal guidelines range broadly.

[2] In re Grand Jury, 23 F.4th 1088 (ninth Cir. 2021); Pritchard v. Cty. of Erie (In re Cty. of Erie), 473 F.3d 413 (second Cir. 2007).

[3] United States v. Torf (In re Grand Jury Subpoena), 357 F.3d 900 (ninth Cir. 2003); Visa U.S.A., Inc. v. First Knowledge Corp., Nos. C-02-1786 JSW (EMC), 245, 248, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17117 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2004).

[4] In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

[5] In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

[6] In re Grand Jury, 23 F.4th 1088 (ninth Cir. 2021).


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here