- 28 -
the partnership. Mr. Frame testified that he had no written
agreement with the partnership to perform legal services but only
an oral agreement to “perform whatever legal services might be
required” (which oral agreement he had with all of the AMCOR-
sponsored partnerships). He misidentified “AMCOR or an AMCOR
affiliate” as the general partner of the partnership with whom he
made that oral agreement. He could not recall any services that
he had performed for the partnership or whether he billed it for
any services. Besides failing to prove the privileged or
otherwise protected nature of the three conversations, petitioner
has failed to prove the communication of any privileged
information from the partnership to Mr. Frame or that, with
respect to the partnership, Mr. Frame ever produced any material
subject to the work product doctrine.
Petitioner also complains with respect to one or more
conversations on or about March 27, 1989, involving Mr. Hochman
(a criminal defense attorney retained by Mr. Frame), Mr. Frame
and Mr. Davies that were monitored or recorded by Mr. Davies.
Those conversations were monitored and recorded without the
permission or authorization of Mr. Goolkasian. Petitioner has
failed to prove that the partnership enjoyed any privilege or
other protected status with respect to those conversations. In
any event, Mr. Goolkasian informed Mr. Hochman of Mr. Davies’
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011