Skip to Content
In his latest article for ABA Litigation News published on 8/12, Segal McCambridge Senior Associate Jeffrey Marchese explores the federal court of appeals' decision to reject an interlocutory appeal regarding grand jury subpoenas issued to a lawyer accused of extorting millions from a hospital. The case, In re: Grand Jury Subpoenas 2021, Nos. 22-1654, 22-1655, 22-1656 (4th Cir. Nov. 22, 2023), saw the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit find that certain discovery privileges did not apply and that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
The case involves a Maryland attorney who demanded an additional $25 million for himself during settlement negotiations for a medical malpractice lawsuit, threatening to create an “internet bomb” if his demands were not met. He was subsequently indicted for attempted extortion under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 1952.
Jeffrey explains, “the appellate court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the arguments under either the Collateral-Order Doctrine or the Perlman Doctrine because privilege interests can be reviewed on post-judgment appeal.” He also notes that the court found the attorney-client privilege was waived and that the crime-fraud exception applied, making protected materials discoverable.
ABA Litigation Section leaders caution that different facts could have led to a different outcome. Jeanne M. Huey, Co-Chair of the Section’s Ethics & Professionalism Committee, states, “The work-product doctrine may have applied if the lawyer was not engaged in a criminal scheme, and the innocent client’s legal interests were in jeopardy if those documents did not remain confidential.”
Read the full article here: https://bit.ly/4dHHQwq (subscriber-based)
