## Facts

- A federal grand jury in the Northern District of Illinois investigated a December 30, 1975 robbery of the Bellwood Savings and Loan Association.
- Suspect Paul Bijeol, who had previously been employed by attorney Edward M. Genson, and Sharon Holloway visited Genson’s office shortly after the robbery.
- Investigators learned Bijeol had given Genson cash; an FBI agent told Genson the money might be robbery proceeds.
- Genson acknowledged receiving something from Bijeol but refused to identify it and declined further cooperation, asserting attorney-client privilege.
- The grand jury issued a subpoena duces tecum directing Genson to produce any payments received from Bijeol or Holloway, including the suspected proceeds.
- The district court denied Genson’s motion to quash and ordered him to appear and comply.
- Genson appeared but refused to produce the money, asserting attorney-client privilege, the Fifth Amendment (including on behalf of his clients), and related due process and privacy objections.
- The district court held Genson in coercive civil contempt under 28 U.S.C. § 1826 and ordered confinement until compliance, subject to statutory limits.
- Genson appealed the contempt order on an expedited basis.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney may withhold suspected robbery proceeds in response to a grand jury subpoena duces tecum based on attorney-client privilege.
2. Whether compelling the attorney to produce the money violates the attorney’s own Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
3. Whether the attorney may invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege on behalf of the clients who allegedly supplied the money.
4. Whether due process or client privacy interests provide “just cause” to refuse compliance under 28 U.S.C. § 1826.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the civil contempt order.
- The court held the attorney-client privilege did not protect the money from production.
- The court held compelling production of the money did not implicate the attorney’s own Fifth Amendment privilege because the money was non-testimonial.
- The court held the attorney lacked standing to assert the clients’ Fifth Amendment rights.
- The court rejected due process and privacy objections as insufficient “just cause” for refusing to comply with the subpoena.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications, not physical evidence or the mere fact and amount of payment, and does not permit an attorney to withhold physical fruits of a crime from lawful process.
- The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled testimonial self-incrimination; compelled surrender of physical evidence, without compelled testimonial communication, is not protected on that basis.
- The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is personal and generally cannot be asserted by an attorney to resist a subpoena directed to the attorney on a client’s behalf.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1826, a grand jury witness who refuses to comply with a valid court order without “just cause” may be confined until compliance, subject to statutory duration limits.

## Conclusion

The court upheld coercive civil contempt against an attorney who refused to produce suspected robbery proceeds to a federal grand jury, concluding that neither attorney-client privilege nor Fifth Amendment arguments (including those asserted for clients), nor generalized due process or privacy claims, justified noncompliance with the subpoena.


In re January 1976 Grand Jury (Genson), 534 F.2d 719 (7th Cir. 1976)