Opinion ID: 3219057
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Activity Record

Text: The IRS produced the relevant portions of Agent Sharma’s activity record, a document similar to a time sheet, with a single entry on one page redacted. The IRS explained that the deleted entry reflected that Agent Sharma “communicated with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel with respect to a specific issue in the examination,” adding that “disclosure of [the redacted entry] would reveal an area of the exam for which the revenue agent sought legal advice.” The IRS relied on Exemption 5’s incorporation of the attorney-client privilege to justify this redaction, and the district court agreed with the IRS. Solers contends mainly that the entry should not have been redacted because “the subject matter of an attorney-client communication is not privileged.” While, as Solers contends, “the general purpose of the work performed [by an attorney] [is] usually not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege because such information ordinarily reveals no confidential professional communications between attorney and client,” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 204 F.3d 516, 520 (4th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), the privilege nonetheless shields from disclosure “the specific nature of the legal advice sought by [the client],” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 341 F.3d 331, 335 (4th Cir. 2003); see also id. (holding that, while the fact that 17 an attorney “provid[ed] advice regarding an immigration matter” would not be privileged, a question “specifically ask[ing] whether [the client] consulted with Counsel about the preparation of [a particular immigration form]” sought information protected by the attorney-client privilege). Accordingly, we conclude that the attorney-client privilege justifies the IRS’ limited redaction of the activity report so as to keep confidential the specific issues on which Revenue Agent Sharma sought legal advice while working on the audit.