Barry E. Moore and Deborah E. Moore - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
               which the client seeks advice.”  Hartz Mountain Indus.                 
               v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 521, 525 (1989) (citing Upjohn                
               Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981)).                       
                    Disclosure of a privileged communication may                      
               result in a waiver of the attorney-client privilege.                   
               Id.  The party asserting the attorney-client privilege                 
               must prove that it has not waived the privilege.  Id.                  
               * * *                                                                  
          Would admission of the exhibits and the Kelly testimony disclose            
          a privileged communication between client and attorney?                     
               We have examined the exhibits and have no doubt that they              
          disclose communications to an attorney (Kelly) for the purpose of           
          obtaining legal advice.  That is apparent from the face of the              
          exhibits (each of which is a letter from Kelly) and is not                  
          seriously challenged by petitioners.  While nothing in the Cagle            
          affidavit declares that those communications were made in                   
          confidence, Exhibit 103-P carries the legend: “Confidential[,]              
          Attorney-Client Communication”; and Exhibit 104-P carries the               
          legend: “Confidential[,] Attorney/Client Privilege”.  We think it           
          a fair inference, and we find, that the communications underlying           
          each letter, and the letters themselves, were intended to be in             
          confidence.                                                                 
               Nevertheless, petitioners claim that the exhibits contain              
          references to Kelly’s understanding, as of the dates of the                 
          exhibits, of the various ownership interests (percentages) in               
          Surgery Center.  Petitioners argue:  “The [attorney-client]                 
          privilege simply does not apply to routine business transactions            
          disclosed to outsiders or business records necessary for the                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011