Holland & Hart tax controversy and litigation attorney Richard Kiely was quoted in Law.com’s Supreme Court Brief Jan. 9 article entitled, “Who Won Monday's SCOTUS Arguments Over Attorney-Client Privilege?” and HR Magazine’s SHRM Employment Law Jan. 9 article entitled, “Supreme Court Hears Case on Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege.” Both articles discussed the US Supreme Court oral arguments heard on Jan. 9 about the scope of attorney-client privilege involving “dual-purpose” communications, in a case that arose in the context of attorneys providing advice on tax matters.
“Once issued, the court's decision could be incredibly important to employers and HR professionals," said Kiely. Commenting on how he thought the arguments went, Kiely said, “the court appears split, with a contingent expressing concern over extending the privilege too far and another contingent concerned over the ability of and wisdom required from courts to parse through thousands of document in search of their ‘primary’ purpose.”
Click here to read Law.com’s Supreme Court Brief Jan. 9 article entitled, “Who Won Monday's SCOTUS Arguments Over Attorney-Client Privilege?” (subscription needed)
Click here to read HR Magazine’s SHRM Employment Law Jan. 9 article entitled, “Supreme Court Hears Case on Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege”
Kiely and tax controversy and litigation partner Susan Combs recently co-authored an article that appeared in Thomson Reuters Westlaw Today, entitled “Fortify attorney-client privilege over dual-purpose communications before Supreme Court decides In re Grand Jury.”