## Facts

- A federal grand jury investigated alleged drug trafficking and money laundering connected to property at 37 Forrester Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., which was also identified in a forfeiture allegation.
- The government believed the titled owner listed in land records was a straw owner.
- A community organization retained counsel and threatened civil nuisance litigation against the record owner to stop drug activity at the property.
- An attorney (Mark Rochon) wrote to opposing counsel on behalf of an undisclosed client, stating the client sought to clarify ownership, retitle the property, and avoid litigation.
- The grand jury subpoenaed Rochon to produce documents concerning ownership/retitling and to testify about the client’s identity.
- Rochon refused to disclose the client’s identity on attorney–client privilege grounds; the client intervened and moved to quash.
- The district court denied the motion to quash, and the client appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether attorney–client privilege bars a grand jury from compelling an attorney to disclose a client’s identity and related non-communicative information when disclosure may be incriminating.
2. Whether a “last link” or incrimination rationale makes client identity privileged absent disclosure of confidential attorney–client communications.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the order denying the motion to quash.
- The court held that compelled disclosure of the client’s identity and related non-communicative information did not violate the attorney–client privilege.
- The court rejected treating client identity as privileged merely because disclosure could be incriminating or complete the government’s evidentiary chain.
- The court concluded that identifying the client would not, in these circumstances, reveal any confidential communication seeking legal advice.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney–client privilege protects confidential communications made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; it is construed narrowly.
- Client identity and fee/source-of-payment information are ordinarily not privileged.
- Information becomes privileged only if it is itself a confidential communication or if disclosure would, in practical effect, disclose the substance of a confidential attorney–client communication.
- The privilege does not expand simply because disclosure may be incriminating or provide a “last link” in the government’s proof.
- Grand juries have broad authority to compel relevant evidence, subject only to limited, clearly defined privileges.

## Conclusion

The court held that a grand jury may compel an attorney to disclose an undisclosed client’s identity and related ownership/retitling information where disclosure does not reveal confidential legal communications, and where incrimination concerns alone do not create privilege.


In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 204 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2000)