Back to Results

DOJ-OGR-00011408.jpg

Source: IMAGES  •  Size: 717.9 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 94.9%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 731-1 Filed 07/14/22 BANISH SHEA & The Honorable Alison J. Nathan BOYLE December 6, 2021 LLP Page 2 Ms. Maxwell’s motion concerns an email AUSA Alison Moe sent her colleagues Lara Pomerantz and Maurene Comey concerning an alleged conversation she had with Mr. Glassman on August 17, 2021. Ms. Maxwell appears to seek to compel Mr. Glassman to essentially corroborate a statement in Ms. Moe’s email wherein she states “He also mentioned that he had told her it would ‘help her case’”. In the unusual effort to compel a witness's lawyer to testify against his own client, Ms. Maxwell claims that Mr. Glassman waived the attorney-client privilege. It is axiomatic that Mr. Glassman did not and could not waive the attorney-client privilege — only Jane could do that. To be clear, Jane did not and does not waive the privilege in any way. And Jane does not authorize Mr. Glassman to testify about any of his alleged communications with her. Further, as a California attorney, Mr. Glassman is bound by California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6. (Rule 1.6 is attached hereto as Exhibit 2). Rule 1.6 prohibits an attorney from disclosing confidential information of the client except in two extremely narrow circumstances. A California attorney may only disclose confidential information if: (1) the client gives informed consent, or (2) the attorney believes disclosure is necessary to prevent the client from committing a crime that will cause death or grave bodily harm. Here, to the extent the “ther” in Ms. Moe’s email refers to Jane, Jane gives no such informed consent. And Mr. Glassman obviously has no reason to believe that disclosing any alleged communication he gave minimum, distasteful and designed to intimidate the witness, and should be discouraged. But procedurally, the appearance date on the subpoena is November 29, 2021 - two days before he was served - making it impossible for him to comply. Additionally, Mr. Glassman was not provided with a witness fee or milage fee as required by Rule 17. DOJ-OGR-00011408

Document Preview

DOJ-OGR-00011408.jpg

Click to view full size

Document Details

Filename DOJ-OGR-00011408.jpg
File Size 717.9 KB
OCR Confidence 94.9%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,068 characters
Indexed 2026-02-03 18:07:43.467900