Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01155/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01155-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

,. 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U<tired Sttfes Coo1c of Appeal. 

Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

IN RE: PATRICIA HELEN BUSH, 

Debtor. 

JAY RADETSKY, 

Creditor-Appellant, 

v. 

CRYSTAL HOMES, INC., et al., 

Creditors-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

AUG .. 8 1800 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-1155 

(D.C. No.90-M-547) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before McKAY, MOORE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App . P . 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This appeal was taken from an order of the United States 

District Court for the District of Colorado dismissing an appeal 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1155 Document: 010110040719 Date Filed: 08/08/1990 Page: 1 
I 

r 

from an order of the bankruptcy court. By our order of June 13, 

1990, we stayed certain discovery proceedings and directed 

appellees to show cause why the district court's judgment should 

not be summarily reversed in light of Fisher v. United States, 425 

U.S. 391, 402 n.8 (1976). Appellees and appellant have now 

responded. 

The district court concluded that appellant had no standing 

to appeal the bankruptcy court's order by asserting an 

attorney-client privilege on behalf of his former client, who is 

the debtor in the bankruptcy proceeding. Upon further review of 

the matter, we conclude the district court was correct. 

The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client alone. 

In re Special September 1978 Grand Jury, 640 F.2d 49, 62 (7th Cir. 

1980); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 163 (6th Cir. 

1986)(citing In re Special September 1978 Grand Jury); see also 

United States v. Layton, 855 F.2d 1388, 1406 (9th Cir. 

1988)(attorney-client privilege can be invoked only at instance of 

client), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 1178 (1989); In re Grand Jury 

Proceedings, 604 F.2d 798, 801 (3d Cir. 1979)(attorney-client 

privilege is one owned by client); Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 

F.2d 1093, 1096 n.7 (5th Cir. 1970)(attorney-client privilege is 

client's to invoke, not attorney's), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 974 

(1971). 

Circumstances under which the attorney may raise the 

attorney-client privilege are limited to those in which the client 

and the attorney jointly raise the privilege or in which the 

client is not a party to the proceeding in which the privilege is 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-1155 Document: 010110040719 Date Filed: 08/08/1990 Page: 2 
• 

r 

asserted, as were the situations in the cases underlying Fisher. 

See, ~, Klitzman, Klitzman and Gallagher v. Krut, 744 F.2d 955 

(3d Cir. 1984)(law firm could challenge search warrant as 

overbroad; clients not parties to action); Tillotson v. Boughner, 

350 F.2d 663, 665 (7th Cir. 196S)(attorney could raise privilege 

where client not party to action). 

Here, however, even if petitioner's initial assertion of the 

privilege in bankruptcy court was permissible, the debtor-client 

could have appealed the bankruptcy court's ruling but did not do 

so. Further, there was no indication until after the district 

court denied petitioner's motion to appeal and dismissed the 

appeal that the client indicated any interest in preserving the 

privilege. We conclude that Fisher is applicable only when the 

client is not a party to the subject litigation or when the client 

is for some other reason incapable of asserting the privilege, 

which is not the case here. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado dismissing the appeal from the 

bankruptcy court is AFFIRMED. The stay granted by our June 13, 

1990, order is VACATED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-1155 Document: 010110040719 Date Filed: 08/08/1990 Page: 3