U.S. v. Legal Services of New York City

No. 00-5244 (D.C. Ct. App. filed Jan. 4, 2001), (D.C. Cir. filed May 25, 2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53433

Description

Legal Services Corporation Grantee’s Ethical Obligations Do Not Bar Production to Inspector General of Client Names Associated with Problem Codes

Abstract

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting summary enforcement of a subpoena requiring appellant legal services organization to disclose client names to the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). Pursuant to its statutory authority, LSC inspector general required several grantees, including appellant, to furnish various data for inspection. Appellant claimed that, absent client consent, attorney-client privilege prevented it from disclosing the names of its clients associated with case numbers because doing so would enable inspector general to match client names with problem codes appellant previously produced. Inspector general then issued subpoenas for the data and petitioned the district court for summary enforcement. The district court granted the petition, and appellant appealed. The court of appeals held that LSC grantees’ ethical obligations did not bar inspector general from compelling production of client names associated with problem codes. Noting that auditing LSC grantees posed ethical concerns not ordinarily presented to a government auditor, the court of appeals found that section 509(h) of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, explicitly authorized LSC auditors to compel production of “time records, retainer agreements . . . and client names.” The court of appeals held that if Congress had intended to require production of these materials only in a manner that disassociated client identity from problem code, it would have said so in terms different from the simple conjunctive phrasing in section 509(h). Finding that the remote possibility of a linkage between a client’s identity and problem code did not “unduly disrupt or seriously hinder” appellant’s provision of legal services, the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order enforcing the subpoena.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Defendant represented by Laura K. Abel, David S. Udell, Philip G. Gallagher, Brennan center for Justice at NYU School of Law, 161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10013 (212.998.6720); Stephen Gillers, NYU School of Law, 40 Washington Square South, New York, NY 10012 (212.998.6200)
Docket Date
2001-01-04 00:00:00+00:00