Grant v. United States
Headline: Court affirms contempt conviction of an attorney who refused to open and produce corporate records for a federal grand jury, limiting lawyers' ability to shield corporate documents from grand-jury inspection.
Holding: The Court held that corporate records are subject to grand-jury inspection and affirmed the attorney's contempt conviction for refusing to examine, produce, and answer about those corporate documents because they were not privileged.
- Makes it harder for lawyers to withhold corporate records from grand juries.
- Allows grand juries to compel corporate documents held for safekeeping.
- Affirms contempt penalties for refusing to comply with subpoenas for corporate papers.
Summary
Background
Walter B. Grant was an attorney who had been given a box and two packages by a man named Burlingame. A federal grand jury issued a subpoena asking Grant to appear, produce books and papers of the Ellsworth Company for 1907–1909, and answer questions about alleged wrongdoing. Grant appeared but refused to open or search the packages and declined to answer certain questions, claiming the materials were privileged or belonged to his client. The grand jury presented him for contempt, and a court referee examined ownership and privilege issues before the judge found Grant in contempt and fined him.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether the documents could be withheld. It found the materials were corporate records and, even if Burlingame had later claimed ownership, their corporate character meant they were subject to inspection by proper authority. The Court also held that the documents were not protected by attorney-client privilege in these circumstances and that Grant could not refuse to examine or produce them or refuse to answer the grand jury’s questions. The court therefore affirmed the contempt judgment and the fine, while noting Grant could purge the contempt by complying with a renewed subpoena.
Real world impact
The ruling makes clear that corporate papers held by a lawyer for safekeeping are not automatically protected from grand-jury subpoenas. Lawyers who refuse to search for and produce such corporate records risk contempt and fines. The decision also confirms that someone who is not a party to a contempt proceeding, like Burlingame here, cannot seek review of that criminal contempt judgment.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?