Epstein Secrets

). Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered — Any privilege would be subject to a crime-fraud-misconduct exception. See In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (applying exception to attorney-client privilege); Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422

communications made for purposes of facilitating the rendition of legal services to the Government client. See, e.g., Diamond v. City of Mobile, 86 F.R.D. 324 (D. Ala. 1978) (attorney-client privilege did not bar disclosure of statements made to the city attorney while conducting the internal investigatio

lating to alleged indiscretion within the department). • Any attorney-client privilege is subject to a crime-fraud-misconduct exception. See In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The victims intend to argue that the crime-fraud-misconduct exception applies on the facts of this case.' • A

communications made for purposes of facilitating the rendition of legal services to the Government client. See, e.g., Diamond I City of Mobile, 86 F.R.D. 324 (D. Ala. 1978) (attorney- client privilege did not bar disclosure of statements made to the city attorney while conducting an internal investigation

). Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered - Any privilege would be subject to a crime-fraud-misconduct exception. See In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (applying exception to attorney-client privilege); Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422

communications made for purposes of facilitating the rendition of legal services to the Government client. See, e.g., Diamond v. City of Mobile, 86 F.R.D. 324 (D. Ala. 1978) (attorney-client privilege did not bar disclosure of statements made to the city attorney while conducting the internal investigatio