inate Order Porn (0697)

United States District Court, Northern District of Miinois

Namaste ner | James B. Moran | tne de Oe
CASE NUMBER 03 C 5693 DATE 4/20/2004
CASE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs JENKENS & GILCHRIST, P.C.
TITLE
[in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Qa Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) ia} Brief in support of motiondue_
@) o Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue__.
(4) imi Ruling/Hearing on setfor at
(5) im Status hearing[held/continued to] (set for/re-set forlon__—=—sset for at
(6) Q Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—_esetfor__—sat_—.
(1) Q Trial{set for/re-set for]on___—_at
(8) o (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto__—sat___.
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

COFRCP4(m) OlLocai Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a\1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

do) (Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. We have reviewed the pertinent
memoranda and the opinions here referred to, and we are persuaded by those opinions that the identity
of the clients is not subject to the attorney-client privilege. The motion to dismiss, to the extent it relies
upon attorney-client privilege, is denied.

aI) oa (For further detail see order (on reverse side of/attached to) the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge's staff.
Notified counsel by telephone.
wv | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
LG deputy's
initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office

i Gp fem bbe



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION gacnete

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2, 1 2004
Petitioner,
vs. No. 03 C 5693

JENKENS & GILCHRIST, P.C., a
professional corporation,

wwe ewe weer ww

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The government seeks to compel respondent, a law firm, to disclose the identity of
hundreds of clients who engaged in certain tax strategies. Respondent moved to dismiss and
to quash because, among other reasons, it contends that the disclosure would violate the
attorney-client privilege.

The {identity of clients is not normally privileged, but it can be in some circumstances
— but those are narrow circumstances indeed, as the Seventh Circuit pointed out in United
States v. BDO Seidman, 337 F.3d 802 (7 Cir. 2003). Respondent has sought to analogize its
situation to those narrow circumstances, contending that BDO Seidman is distinguishable for
several reasons. Since its memorandum was filed, two judges have issued opinions rejecting
those reasons. Most comparable is United States y. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, 03 C
9355 (N.D.II. 4/15/04), authored by my colleague, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, because the
respondent there was also a law firm seeking to protect the identity of clients engaged in
similar tax strategies. Similar arguments were advanced, moreover, in John Doe I v. KPMG

L.L.P., 03 C 2036 (N.D.Tex. 4/12/04), and fust as soundly rejected by Judge Barefoot Sanders.


_

No, 03 C 5693 Page2

We have reviewed the pertinent memoranda and the opinions here referred to, and we are
persuaded by those opinions that the identity of the clients is not subject to the attorney-client

privilege. The motion to dismiss, to the extent it relies upon attorney-client privilege, is denied.

JAMES B. MORAN
ior Judge, U. S. District Court

Onrk 20, 2004.