Ninth Circuit's "Primary Purpose" Test Governs For Dual-Purpose Attorney-Client Communications

The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressing the scope of the attorney-client privilege.

In this case, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California had held an unidentified company and law firm in contempt for their refusal to comply with subpoenas in a criminal investigation. Relying on the attorney-client privilege, the company and law firm withheld certain communications claiming that they involved both tax and legal advice. The court ruled that such dual-purpose communications were not protected by the attorney-client privilege. The court reasoned that the "primary purpose" of those communications was to obtain non-legal tax advice. The company and law firm appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit, on the ground that the district court should have relied on a broader "because of" test instead of the "primary purpose" test to determine