## Facts

- Federal law (26 U.S.C. § 6050I) required businesses that receive more than $10,000 in cash in a transaction (or related transactions) to file an information return (Form 8300) identifying the payer and reporting transaction details.
- The Internal Revenue Service issued summonses under 26 U.S.C. § 7602 to two criminal defense law firms and certain attorneys seeking client names and identifying information for clients who paid cash fees exceeding $10,000.
- The firms, attorneys, and two affected clients (intervening under pseudonyms) refused to comply, asserting that compelled disclosure of client identity and fee information was protected by the attorney–client privilege.
- They also argued enforcement in the criminal-defense context burdened the Sixth Amendment right to counsel by deterring clients from retaining counsel or paying fees in cash and by impairing attorney–client trust.
- The district court ordered compliance with the summonses and reporting requirements; the firms, attorneys, and intervening clients appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the attorney–client privilege bars enforcement of IRS summonses and § 6050I obligations requiring disclosure of client identity and cash-fee information exceeding $10,000.
2. Whether enforcing § 6050I against criminal defense attorneys violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel by materially interfering with obtaining or paying for counsel.
3. Whether criminal defense attorneys are exempt, as a constitutional or common-law matter, from § 6050I’s generally applicable reporting scheme.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the enforcement orders.
- The court held that client identity and fee information required by § 6050I are generally not protected by attorney–client privilege, and no applicable exception was shown.
- The court held that applying § 6050I to criminal defense attorneys does not violate the Sixth Amendment where the statute is neutral and generally applicable and any effect on payment decisions is incidental.
- The court rejected a categorical exemption for criminal defense representation and required compliance with the IRS summonses and Form 8300 reporting.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney–client privilege ordinarily protects confidential communications for legal advice, not underlying facts such as client identity, the existence of a representation, or fee arrangements.
- An exception may apply only when disclosure of identity or fees would effectively reveal a confidential communication; the party asserting privilege bears the burden to show that circumstance.
- Congress may impose neutral, generally applicable financial reporting duties on attorneys; professional obligations do not override clear statutory reporting requirements when privileged communications are not compelled.
- The Sixth Amendment does not create immunity from generally applicable reporting laws; incidental deterrence or inconvenience in a client’s preferred method of payment is insufficient absent a substantial and direct impairment of the right to counsel.

## Conclusion

The court upheld enforcement of IRS summonses requiring criminal defense firms to provide Form 8300 information for large cash payments, holding that the required client identity and fee data were not privileged on the record presented and that § 6050I’s neutral reporting scheme did not violate the Sixth Amendment or justify a special exemption for criminal defense practice.


United States v. Goldberger & Dubin, P.C., 935 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1991)