Skip to Main Content
01/09/2023

Rich Kiely Quoted in Supreme Court Brief and SHRM Discussing SCOTUS Arguments on Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege

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.”

DISCLAIMER

Unless you are a current client of Holland & Hart LLP, please do not send any confidential information by email. If you are not a current client and send an email to an individual at Holland & Hart LLP, you acknowledge that we have no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us, unless we have already agreed to represent you or we later agree to do so. Thus, we may represent a party adverse to you, even if the information you submit to us could be used against you in a matter, and even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us.