“Under the crime-fraud exception, communications are not privileged when the client consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud or crime.” In re Grand Jury Investigation, 810 F.3d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). To meet this burden, Durham had to show two things: 1) That the client was engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when it sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme. 2) That Durham demonstrated the attorney-client communications for which production is sought are sufficiently related to and were made in furtherance of the intended, or present, continuing illegality.
tl;dr: There is no client-attorney privilege if you're using it to commit fraud.
Then there's this:
tl;dr: There is no client-attorney privilege if you're using it to commit fraud.
Boom.
They’ve broken Marc Elias/hildabeest attorney client privilege 😳 Sod popcorn 🍿 I’m gonna need some sammiches for this….