Protecting a Client’s Confidences: Recent Developments in Privileged Communication Between Attorneys and Accountants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The attorney-client privilege is one of the foundations of ourjurisprudence. Originally, designed to prevent attorneys from testifying against their clients, the privilege eventually evolved to reflect legal, societal, and financial complexities. This privilege depends on full disclosure and open communication between attorney and the client in order to provide competent and adequate representation. Today, attorneys often require and rely on expert guidance of accountants for various issues pertaining to litigation and transactional work.This article illustrates how the recent cases of Commissioner v. Comcast Corp. and United States v. Textron affect privileged communications in complex tax and transactional matters between attorneys and accountants retained for the purposes of client representation. The article also offers guidance on how to preserve privilege in communication between attorneys and accountants as waiver of such privilege may have significant and costly implications. At conclusion, unresolved issues pertaining to privileged communication are discussed and solutions are offered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".