Court Opinion

ID: 9469349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:38:06.465566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:20.591812
License: Public Domain

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result and in all of Judge Gee’s cogent opinion except in so far as it implies that Pavlick may be compelled to reveal the identity of the person furnishing the bond and attorneys’ fees money for “the three” because such information would not be sufficiently incriminatory of that individual. Given the facts showing that such individual was redeeming a promise made to induce “the three” to join the criminal conspiracy, it seems clear that the information was highly incriminatory and that was precisely why the government wanted it.
*1031I also observe, as an additional reason supporting the result reached by Judge Gee, that Pavlick was asked merely the identity of the person who paid him to represent and bond “the three”; he was' not asked whether such person was his client (rather he volunteered that information), or anything such person said to him as his client; nor was Pavlick ever asked the identity of any client or whether any specific person was a client of his (other than “the three”). While perhaps such circumstances standing alone should not be decisive in requiring disclosure, in my opinion they become so when combined with the showing that such individual was redeeming a promise made to induce “the three” to join the criminal conspiracy. Plainly, if our Mr. (or Ms.) X had given the bond money to non-lawyer B to take to “the three” in redemption of the referenced promise, B could be made to identify X. The result should not be otherwise because X chooses a lawyer to be the carrier and at the same time also asks the lawyer to represent him (or her).
I also agree generally with the comments in Judge Rubin’s concurring opinion pointing out there is no showing that requiring Pavlick to answer the question posed will disclose any communication between Pav-lick and Anonymous made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice from Pavlick for his representation of Anonymous. However, I believe Judge Rubin reads the majority opinion too broadly. I believe it should be understood in the light of the question it properly addresses: May Pavlick be required to answer the question who furnished him the money to bond and represent “the three”? As I read it, the majority does not address Pavlick’s obligation to answer questions as to the content of communications from Anonymous or Pavlick in furtherance of Pavlick’s legal representation of Anonymous.