Jonathan Redgrave discusses In re Grand Jury and advocates for the significant purpose test for “dual-purpose” communications in the Bloomberg Law article “US Seeks to Limit Attorney Client Privilege Over Opposition.”

. . .

Lawyer groups warn that reading the privilege too narrowly could undermine the purpose behind it and chill open and frank discussions between lawyers and their clients. The firm here says a broad privilege is particularly important in extraordinarily complex areas of the law like tax and cryptocurrency.

But Jonathan M. Redgrave, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of Lawyers for Civil Justice, said this issue goes beyond those industries and potentially implicates all in-house lawyers.

. . .

Because corporate officers often ask their in-house counsel questions that have both legal and business importance, “the significant purpose test looks more practically at the way corporations actually work,” Redgrave said.

Access the full Bloomberg Law article here.