Legal Opinion
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Zerendow)
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided October 19, 1995No. 1:95-cv-10533PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SARIS, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
■ The government has filed two motions to compel an attorney to testify before a grand jury concerning (1) his memory of a conversation between his client and law enforcement officials and (2) the fee arrangement with his former client. The Court concludes that the first subject matter is protected under the work product doctrine but that the latter subject matter is not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.
BACKGROUND
On July 24, 1995, the petitioner, attorney Donald Zerendow, moved to quash a grand jury subpoena…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- United States v. NoblesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Clark v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Garner v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- United States v. United Shoe MacHinery CorporationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1950
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- In Re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGSCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
- State ex rel. Allstate Insurance v. GaughanWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1998
- STATE EX REL. ALLSTATE INS. v. GaughanWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1998
- In re the Reorganization of Electric Mutual Liability InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
- Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2000
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.