Opinion ID: 447836
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Breadth of the Exception

Text: 30 Clearly, the crime-fraud exception will defeat the attorney-client privilege only as to misconduct that occurred during the period of representation by Doe and Roe. Communications with Doe and Roe regarding past crimes, including misconduct that occurred during the California litigation, remain privileged. To the limited extent that past acts of misconduct were the subject of the cover-up that occurred during the period of representation, however, then past violations properly may be a subject of grand jury inquiry. 31 Synanon argues that the district court's order that Doe and Roe appear before the grand jury and answer any questions which the grand jury may ask in connection with the alleged violations is impermissibly broad. Synanon further argues that because the district court did not review any question the government asked or proposed to ask, it failed to make the requisite findings as to whether the privileged communications at issue reasonably related to the alleged crime or fraud. 32 We see no reason, however, to remand this case for clarification of the scope of the order. When the district court's opinion is read as a whole, the term alleged violations necessarily refers to violations that occurred during the time in which Doe and Roe represented Synanon. The government concedes that the order applies only to instances of fraud, perjury, and false document submission that transpired during the period of representation and not to prior acts or confessions beyond the scope of the continuing fraud. Such prior acts unquestionably remain within the protection of the attorney-client privilege. 33 Judge Robinson indicated in the transcript of the hearing of May 18, 1984 that he was prepared to rule on the propriety of each question on a question-by-question basis. This permits the court to make the requisite relatedness finding for each question to which counsel objects and is precisely the relief Synanon requested in its brief. In addition, given the nebulous distinction in this case between prior acts that remain protected by the attorney-client privilege and prior acts forming the basis of the ongoing cover-up that do not, we believe a question-by-question determination is not only appropriate but required by the circumstances. We therefore find that the scope of the order is not impermissibly overbroad. 34 For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order is 35 Affirmed.