Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Widget HTML #1

(DOWNLOAD) "State Missouri Ex Rel. Arthur Friedman v." by En Banc Supreme Court of Missouri * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

State Missouri Ex Rel. Arthur Friedman v.

📘 Read Now     📥 Download


eBook details

  • Title: State Missouri Ex Rel. Arthur Friedman v.
  • Author : En Banc Supreme Court of Missouri
  • Release Date : January 16, 1984
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 64 KB

Description

Relator, a member of a law firm formerly representing the St. Louis County Special School District, moved to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued at the request of the St. Louis County Grand Jury. The subpoena was directed to Mr. Friedman's firm in connection with an investigation of allegedly excessive legal fees purportedly charged to the Special School District. Relator asserted that the subpoena required disclosure of matters claimed to be protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product privilege, and that it sought documents beyond the permissible scope of the Grand Jury's investigation. Respondent, after examining affidavits and descriptions of the types of information said to be contained in the requested materials, refused to quash the subpoena. Relator then obtained a provisional writ in prohibition from the Court of Appeals, Eastern District, preventing respondent from denying relator's motion to quash the subpoena. This Court granted transfer to determine the applicability of the attorney-client privilege to the types of materials sought by the Grand Jury in this case. The writ is quashed. The Grand Jury's subpoena directed relator to produce certain records of the law firm, including attorneys' appointment books reflecting billings to the school district, as well as billing statements of Arthur Friedman relative to all clients. Relator asserts that the identities and confidences of many clients would be breached by the Grand Jury's examination of such appointment books and billing statements. The prosecuting attorney, on behalf of the respondent, counters that the Grand Jury needs the information sought by the subpoena in order to compare the amounts of time expended by relator's firm on matters involving the Special School District with amounts of time expended on other clients' affairs, and to aid in determining whether the firm engaged in double billing.


Free PDF Books "State Missouri Ex Rel. Arthur Friedman v." Online ePub Kindle