Alexiou v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994 · Evidence

39 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 1994)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceAttorney-client privilegeGrand jury subpoenasclient identityfee arrangementsgrand jurysubpoena duces tecumlast link exception

Facts

Alexiou, a lawyer, deposited money into his law firm account, and one of the bills was discovered to be counterfeit. After the Secret Service asked for the identity of the person who passed the bill, Alexiou concluded that he could not disclose the client's identity without a court order and refused to do so voluntarily. A grand jury subpoena then ordered him to testify and produce the client's name, address, date, and amount of money received. Alexiou moved to quash, claiming the requested information was protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Issue

Whether a grand jury subpoena requiring an attorney to disclose a client's name, address, date, and amount of money received is barred by the attorney-client privilege when the client paid the attorney with a counterfeit bill. Also, whether the court could hear the appeal immediately under the third-party subpoena exception to the usual contempt requirement.

Rule

The attorney-client privilege generally does not protect disclosure of a client's identity or fee arrangements. An exception applies only when disclosure of identity or fee information would in substance disclose a confidential communication in the professional relationship, such as where revealing identity would effectively acknowledge guilt of the offense for which legal advice was sought or would be the last link in the chain of evidence necessary to convict.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Oregon, attorney Nina Cortez represented Devon Pike in a zoning dispute. Months later, a grand jury subpoena ordered Nina to produce the name, address, date, and amount of cash paid by the person whose retainer included several stolen museum admission vouchers that investigators believed had circulated through a burglary ring.

If Nina moves to quash solely on attorney-client privilege grounds, how should the court most likely rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a client's identity and fee arrangements are generally not protected by the attorney-client privilege. The narrow exception applies only when disclosure would in substance reveal a confidential communication in the professional relationship. Here, the representation involved a zoning dispute, and the subpoena seeks only identifying and payment information, so privilege does not bar disclosure.