Legal Opinion
In Re Motion to Quash Bar Counsel Subpoena
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided October 27, 2009No. Cum-09-226PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*333Majority: CLIFFORD, LEW, MEAD, and GORMAN, JJ.
Dissent: ALEXANDER, J.
MEAD, J.
[¶ 1] The law firm of Verrill Dana LLP (the firm) appeals from an order entered by a single justice of this Court (Silver; J.) denying its motion to quash a subpoena issued to its former general counsel by Bar Counsel for the Board of Overseers of the Bar. The subpoena seeks records that the firm claims are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. Bar Counsel asserts that this interlocutory appeal should be dismissed, or, as he argued successfully to the single justice, that the crime-fraud…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- United States v. ZolinSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Clark v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- In Re: Grand Jury Subpoenas, Jane Roe and John Doe. Intervenor v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
- Board of Overseers of the Bar v. LeeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1980
- Application of FeingoldSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1972
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Harris Management, Inc. v. Paul CoulombeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2016
- Bank of New York v. RichardsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2011
- Board of Overseers of the Bar v. WarrenSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2011
- In Re Motion to Quash Bar Counsel SubpoenaSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2009