## Facts

- Donald L. Woodruff was released on bail pending trial in a federal criminal case.
- Woodruff failed to appear for his scheduled trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The United States indicated it intended to pursue a separate bail-jumping charge under 18 U.S.C. § 3150, which required proof that Woodruff knowingly failed to appear.
- To establish notice and knowledge, the government moved for an order compelling Woodruff’s public defender to answer limited questions: (1) whether counsel told Woodruff the trial’s time and place, and (2) whether Woodruff acknowledged understanding that information.
- Defense counsel refused to provide the information voluntarily, asserting attorney-client privilege.
- The parties treated the dispute as turning solely on whether the privilege covered these communications.

## Issues

1. Whether attorney-client privilege bars compelling defense counsel to disclose that counsel informed the client of the time and place of trial and that the client acknowledged understanding that information.

## Decision

- The court granted the government’s motion to compel.
- The court held that attorney-client privilege did not cover counsel’s communication of the trial date and location, or the client’s acknowledgment of that notice.
- The court ordered that defense counsel could be required to answer questions limited to notice of the trial’s time and place and the client’s response confirming understanding.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney-client privilege protects only confidential communications made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or legal services; it does not automatically attach to every attorney-client exchange.
- Communications that are administrative, ministerial, or purely procedural—such as notifying a client of the time and place of a public court proceeding—fall outside the privilege when not directed to legal advice or assistance on the client’s legal problem.
- The privilege is subject-matter limited: the content and purpose of the communication determine whether it is protected.
- Policy concerns about effects on attorney-client trust do not justify extending the privilege beyond its established doctrinal boundaries where the communication is non-advisory notice relevant to enforcing appearance obligations.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that a defense attorney may be compelled to testify that the attorney notified a client of the trial’s time and place and that the client acknowledged understanding, because such notice is not a privileged legal-advice communication and is relevant to proving a knowing failure to appear.


United States v. Woodruff, 383 F. Supp. 696 (E.D. Pa. 1974)