ÿWPCa< õ$$~æ¢ZV"Ò`˯ˆ9)ZN"ÒŽ¥ß*Üq N¯ UB± bó ”û 0Ô Mc 0Dg M« M¯ U<³ Mï Mó 01÷ 0=( 0Èe 0>- 0Êk 0´5 0´é 0a 0´þ 0´² 09f 0ÜŸ 02{ 0ü­ 0:© 0…ã 0_h 0 Ç 0kÑ 0Ç< B* D3- C` D+z 0Ç¥ 0çl 06S 0‰ 0:‘ 0hË 0F3U6yU>¯U*íM M   M4 M8 8 M< @ M@$MD$QH$M™'M'M¡'M¥'¥'¥'¥'¥'É©' r,Mx,(|,|,|,ؤ,¤,7|.f³1³1³1³1³1³1 B77777777777777+67˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0(®Fa  Z6Times New Roman Regular‹($¡¡W,s -H|,Æìf‚3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ´è\( 9Z+&Courier Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- ù- €PathakPathakcolorableCavallaroCavallarosHamel Dorr(„(2‰ˆ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ ‹ ‡‹‹‹ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€<ЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÙÖ7  `$Times NewRoman0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<GDÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó('zÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°Ôó óÔ  ÔÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8SPÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡7<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡8ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6&)ÿÿ4HyperlinkÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡7<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔó óÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡8ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡7<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡8ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/Ó<ÃÇÿÿ:z©Bottom of ÓI€-.4$À˜ ** €€d€dIÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ € ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡9%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ9€/.*À  €€d€d9ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡8ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔ € Ô&ÿÿ0 d d,,,,'þÿÈÈÈÈdxd÷ÿdÿÿÿd'ÈÈÈÈdxd<ÃÇÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓI€-.4$À˜** €€d€dIÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ € ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡9%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ9€/.*À  €€d€d9ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡8ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔ € Ô0Klÿÿ.SampleÔK‡7<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔS‡8ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡7<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡8ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó:ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô<þ6X9`(Courier Newô\  `&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`Arial Ñ  Ñ öÝ ƒ‰ˆ$ÝÔ€ ‹ ‡‹‹‹ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€<ЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€<‹Ð‹dЋd=Óà ` à"As€a€tool€of€discovery,€the€ðð€7602€summons€is€criticalÐ ° Ðto€the€investigative€and€enforcement€functions€of€the€IRS."€€òòUnitedÐ xÈ ÐStatesóó€v.€òòArthur€Young€&€Co.óó,€465€U.S.€805,€814€(1984).€€WhileÐ @ Ððð7602€is€"subject€to€the€traditional€privileges,"€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð X ÐòòÔ_ÔEugeÔ_Ôóó,€444€U.S.€707,€714€(1980),€we€are€cautious€of€"recognizingÐ Ð  Ðexceptions€to€the€broad€summons€authority€of€the€IRS€or€inÐ ˜è Ðfashioning€new€privileges€that€would€curtail€disclosure€underÐ ` ° Ððð7602"€absent€clear€congressional€directions.€€òòArthur€Youngóó,€465Ð ( x ÐU.S.€at€816„17.€€ GÝ ƒ‰ˆ$ÝÔ€ ‹ ‡‹‹‹ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€<ЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€<‹Ð‹dЋd=Óà ` àIn€1998,€Congress€established€a€limited€privilege€forÐ ° Ðaccountant„client€communications.€€Pub.€L.€No.€105„206,€title€III,Ð xÈ Ððð€3411,€112€Stat.€685,€751€(codified€at€26€U.S.C.€ðð€7525€(Supp.€VÐ @ Ð1999))ò òó ó.€€The€privilege,€however,€applies€only€to€communicationsÐ X Ðoccurring€after€July€22,€1998.€€òòId.óó€ðð€3411(c).€€Because€all€of€theÐ Ð  Ðcommunications€at€issue€occurred€before€this€date,€neither€partyÐ ˜è Ðargues€that€the€statutory€privilege€applies€here.ò òó ó ¿Ý ƒ‰ˆ$ÝÔ€ ‹ ‡‹‹‹ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€<ЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€<‹Ð‹dЋd=Óà ` àWith€respect€to€the€notes€from€the€December€19€meetingÐ ° Ðand€any€follow„up€communications€arising€from€this€meeting,€theÐ xÈ ÐCavallaros€state€that€they€have€already€produced€all€of€theÐ @ Ðrequested€documents€that€Ernst€&€Young€created.€€They€say€that€allÐ X Ðof€the€transfer€tax€documents€still€claimed€as€privileged€wereÐ Ð  Ðeither€created€by€Hale€and€Dorr€or€sent€to€Hale€and€Dorr€by€otherÐ ˜è Ðaccountants€working€for€the€family€or€their€businesses,€with€oneÐ ` ° Ðexception:€a€letter€from€David€Frac€of€Camelot€to€Lawrence€Goodman,Ð ( x Ðan€Ernst€&€Young€senior€manager,€regarding€preparation€for€aÐ ð @ Ðmeeting€with€Hale€and€Dorr.€€With€respect€to€category€(3),€theÐ ¸   Ðmerger,€the€Cavallaros€say€that€several€of€the€documents€stillÐ € Ð  Ðwithheld€were€created€by€Ernst€&€Young.€HÁ ÎÝ ƒ‰ˆ$ÝÔ€ ‹ ‡‹‹‹ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€<ЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€<‹Ð‹dЋd=Óà ` àThe€district€court€did€not€address€the€government'sÐ ° Ðargument€that€the€documents€fall€under€the€crime„fraud€exception.€Ð xÈ ÐòòCavallaroóó,€153€F.€Supp.€2d€at€58€n.3. -Ý ƒ‰ˆ$ÝÔ€ ‹ ‡‹‹‹ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€<ЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€<‹Ð‹dЋd=Óà ` àAccordingly,€were€the€Cavallaros€to€show€that€theyÐ ° Ðemployed€Ernst€&€Young,€or€that€Knight€or€Hale€and€Dorr€did€so,Ð xÈ Ðthis€alone€would€be€insufficient€to€bring€the€disputedÐ @ Ðcommunications€within€òòÔ_ÔKovelÔ_Ôóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔGurtnerÔ_Ôóó,€474Ð X ÐF.2d€297,€299€(9th€Cir.€1973)€(stating€that€not€all€consultationsÐ Ð  Ðwith€accountants,€acting€as€attorneys'€agents,€are€privileged).€€ \Ô_ÔÔ‡XšQ X‹‹ÔÝ ƒ‰ˆÿÝÔ€ X ‡‹ XXšQÔÓ  ÓÓ=€<ЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓ=€<‹Ð‹dЋd=Óà ` àThe€IRS€issued€its€summons€under€the€authority€granted€byÐ ° Ð26€U.S.C.€ðð€7602€(1994€&€Supp.€V€1999).€€That€section€states€that€Ð xÈ ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à[Ô_Ôf]orÔ_Ô€the€purpose€of€.€.€.€determining€the€liability€ofÐ X Ðany€person€for€any€internal€revenue€tax€.€.€.€theÐ Ð  ÐSecretary€is€authorized€„„€(1)€To€examine€any€books,Ð ˜è Ðpapers,€records,€or€other€data€which€may€be€relevant€orÐ ` ° Ðmaterial€to€such€inquiry;€[and]€(2)€To€summon€the€personÐ ( x Ð.€.€.€to€appear€before€the€Secretary€.€.€.€to€produceÐ ð @ Ðsuch€books,€papers,€records,€or€other€data,€and€to€giveÐ ¸   Ðsuch€testimony,€under€oath,€as€may€be€relevant€orÐ € Ð  Ðmaterial€to€such€inquiry.ÐH ˜ ` (#` (# ÐÌÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓÔ#† ‹ ‡‹‹ X ‡#ÔòòId.óó€Ô‡ X ‡‹‹ ‹ ‡Ôðð€7602Ô#† ‹ ‡‹‹ X ‡#Ô(a)€(1994).€€ d !Ý ƒ‰ˆ$ÝÔ€ ‹ ‡‹‹‹ÔÓ  ÓÓ=€<ЋdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€<‹Ð‹dЋd=Óà ` àWe€will€assume€Ô_ÔarguendoÔ_Ô€that€this€circuit€would€adopt€theÐ ° ÐòòÔ_ÔKovelÔ_Ôóó€test€or€a€similar€standard,€as€so€many€other€circuits€haveÐ xÈ Ðdone,€òòóóbut€we€need€not€decide€the€question.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð @ ÐòòÔ_ÔBornsteinÔ_Ôóó,€977€F.2d€112,€116„17€(4th€Cir.€1992);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð X F ÐòòEl€Paso€Co.óó,€682€F.2d€530,€541€(5th€Cir.€1982);€òòIn€re€Grand€JuryÐ ° ÐProceedingsóó,€220€F.3d€568,€571€(7th€Cir.€2000);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð xÈ ÐòòCoteóó,€456€F.2d€142,€144€(8th€Cir.€1972);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòJudsonóó,Ð @ Ð322€F.2d€460,€462„63€(9th€Cir.€1963);€òòFed.€Trade€Ô_ÔComm'nÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔTRWÔ_Ô,Ð X ÐInc.óó,€628€F.2d€207,€212€(D.C.€Cir.€1980)òòóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€Sup.€Ct.Ð Ð  ÐStandard€503(b)€and€503(a)(3).Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑØØÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*ÓÓÓÓÓÑ8€  ‡ X‹dÈdÈ8ÑÓ=€<‹Ð‹dÐd=ÓÝ ƒÿÝÝ  ÝÔ‡ ‹ ‡‹‹‹ÔÔ‡ X ‡‹‹ ‹ ‡Ôà@k k ìàò òÔ#† ‹ ‡‹‹ X ‡`#ÔÔ‡ L®£J‹ ‹ ‡ÔÔ#†LZšJJ L®£A#ÔÔ‡LZšJJLZšÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ#†‹<‹JLZš·#ÔÔ‡XšQ X‹‹<ԈР° Ðà@ ìàÔ#†‹<‹ XXšQY#ÔÔ‡RÐó Q‹‹<ÔFor€the€First€Circuitó óÔ#†‹<‹ QRÐóÃ#ÔÔ#†‹<‹‹‹<ù#ԈР^® Ðà@   ìà____________________ˆÐ ªú ÐÌÌÔ‡ ‹ ‡‹‹‹<ÔNo.€01„2237Ð ª ú ÐÌÌÓ  ÓWILLIAM€CAVALLARO;€PATRICIA€CAVALLARO,Ð  R ÐÓÕÓÌà@LLìàÔ‡ X ‡‹‹ ‹ ‡ÔPetitioners,€Appellants,ˆÐ ’â  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ "r  ÐÌÓ  Óà@@ÜÜ ìàUNITED€STATES,Ð ²  ÐÌà@@<< ìàRespondent,€Appellee.Ð B’ ÐÔ#†XšQ X‹ X ‡”#ÔÔ#†‹<‹ XXšQ?#ÔÔ‡ ‹ ‡‹‹‹<ÔÔ‡ X ‡‹‹ ‹ ‡ÔÌÔ#†XšQ X‹ X ‡|#ÔÓ¸ÓÔ‡ X ‡‹ XXšQÔÔ#† ‹ ‡‹‹ X ‡›#ÔÔ‡ X ‡‹‹ ‹ ‡Ôà@<< ìà____________________ˆÐ Ò" ÐÌÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ *z ÐÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ º  ÐÌà@  ìà[Hon.€Patti€B.€Saris,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ Jš Ðà@<< ìà____________________ˆÐ b ÐÌà ` àà ¨ àà  àà X àà ° àÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ jº ÐÓ  ÓÌTorruella,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,€Ð úJ ÐStahl,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,Ð Â  Ðand€Lynch,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.òòóóÐ Š Ú! ÐÌÓ,Óà@<< ìà____________________ˆÐ "j# ÐÌÓ* °X°,X°` ¨ ƒX*Óà  àòòWilliam€H.€Paineóó€with€whom€òòMary€B.€Strotheróó€and€òòHale€and€DorrÐ ª#ú% ÐLLPóó€were€on€brief€for€appellants.Ð r$Â& Ðà  àòòEdward€T.€Perelmuteróó,€Attorney,€Tax€Division,€Department€ofÐ :%Š ' ÐJustice,€with€whom€òòEileen€J.€O'Connoróó,€Assistant€Attorney€General,Ð &R!( ÐòòRichard€Farberóó,€€Attorney,€Tax€Division,€Department€of€Justice,€Ô#† ‹ ‡‹‹ X ‡0#ÔÔ‡ X ‡‹‹ ‹ ‡ÔÔ#†XšQ X‹ X ‡î#ÔÔ‡ X ‡‹ XXšQÔandÐ Ê&") ÐòòMichael€J.€Sullivanóó,€United€States€Attorney,€of€counsel,€were€onÐ ’'â"* Ðbrief€for€appellee.€€Ó.°,X°` ¨ ƒX°X- .ÓÐ Z(ª#+ Ðà@<< ìà____________________ˆÐ ")r$, ÐÌà@àà$ìàApril€1,€2002ˆÐ ²*&. Ðà@<< ìà____________________ˆÐ  z+Ê&/ ÐÓŸÓØØÑ 0XÑÑ€=@¸ÑÑ8€  ‡ X‹dÈ X‹dÈ8Ñà ` àò òòòÔ#†XšQ X‹ X ‡g #ÔÔ#†‹<‹ XXšQ% #ÔóóÔ€ ‹ ‡‹‹‹<ÔLYNCH,€òòCircuit€Judgeó óóó.€€This€case€raises€importantÐ ° Ðquestions€about€the€scope€of€the€attorney„client€privilege.€Ð à ÐWilliam€and€Patricia€Cavallaro€("Cavallaros")€owned€Knight€ToolÐ  p ÐCo.,€Inc.,€founded€in€1976.€€Their€adult€sons€owned€CamelotÐ °  ÐSystems,€Inc.,€created€in€1987.€€The€Cavallaros€and€their€sonsÐ @  Ðmerged€their€respective€corporations€in€1995€and,€on€July€1,€1996,Ð Ð   Ðthe€merged€entity€sold€for€approximately€$97€million.€Ð `°  ÐSubsequently,€the€Internal€Revenue€Service€began€an€investigationÐ ð@  Ðinto€the€Cavallaros'€correct€estate€and€gift€tax€("transfer€tax")Ð €Ð  Ðliabilities.€€The€IRS€suspected€that€the€parties€might€haveÐ ` Ðundervalued€the€Cavallaros'€Knight€company€and€overvalued€the€sons'Ð  ð ÐCamelot€company€to€disguise€a€gift€to€the€sons€in€the€form€of€post„Ð 0€ Ðmerger€stock.€€Ð À Ðà ` àIn€the€course€of€this€investigation,€the€IRS€served€aÐ P  Ðsummons€on€Ernst€&€Young,€an€accounting€firm€that€Camelot€hadÐ à0 Ðretained€in€June€of€1994.€€The€summons€requested€that€Ernst€&€YoungÐ pÀ Ðproduce€"all€records"€in€its€possession€regarding€any€work€it€didÐ P  Ðbetween€1984€and€1995€for€the€Cavallaros,€their€sons,€and€theirÐ à" Ðrespective€corporations.€€The€Cavallaros€moved€to€quash€the€summonsÐ  !p$ Ðas€overly€broad€and€calling€for€privileged€materials.€€They€arguedÐ °"& Ðthat€the€documents€in€Ernst€&€Young's€possession€were€protected€byÐ @$( Ðthe€attorney„client€privilege€because€the€documents€were€createdÐ Ð% !* Ðby,€or€provided€to,€Ernst€&€Young€in€the€course€of€the€efforts€ofÐ `'°", Ðthe€law€firm€Hale€and€Dorr€to€provide€legal€advice;€particularly,Ð ð(@$. Ðadvice€sought€in€1994€and€1995€concerning€transfer€tax€and€mergerÐ €*Ð%0 Ðissues€arising€from€the€close€relationship€between€Camelot€andÐ ,`'2 ÐKnight.€€The€IRS€counterclaimed€for€enforcement€of€the€summons.€€OnÐ ° ÐJuly€27,€2001,€the€district€court€denied€the€Cavallaros'€petitionÐ @ Ðto€quash€and€allowed€the€government's€motion€to€enforce€theÐ Ð  Ðsummons.€€òòCavallaroóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€153€F.€Supp.€2d€52€(D.€Mass.Ð ` ° Ð2001).€€Subsequently,€the€district€court€granted€the€Cavallaros'Ð ð @ Ðmotion€for€stay€pending€appeal,€thereby€permitting€the€CavallarosÐ € Ð  Ðto€continue€to€refrain€from€disclosing€the€documents€that€theyÐ `  Ðallege€are€privileged.€€Ð  ð  Ðà ` àAs€in€the€district€court€proceedings,€three€categories€ofÐ 0€  Ðdocuments€requested€by€the€IRS€are€at€issue:€(1)€documentsÐ À Ðpertaining€to€the€December€19,€1994,€meeting€„„€between€theÐ P  ÐCavallaros,€their€sons,€a€Camelot€accountant,€accountants€fromÐ à0 ÐErnst€&€Young,€and€at€least€one€lawyer€from€Hale€and€Dorr€„„Ð pÀ Ðaddressing€transfer€tax€issues;€(2)€subsequent€transfer€taxÐ P Ðcommunications€arising€from€the€December€19€meeting;€and€(3)Ð à Ðdocuments€related€to€communications€addressing€the€1995€merger€ofÐ  p ÐKnight€and€Camelot.€€All€of€the€requested€documents€are€in€Ernst€&Ð °  ÐYoung's€possession.€€They€are€all€documents€either€created€by€ErnstÐ @" Ð&€Young€or€transmitted€to€Ernst€&€Young,€not€documents€preservedÐ Ð $ Ðsolely€in€Hale€and€Dorr's€files.ò òó óÐ `"°& Ðà ` àOn€appeal,€as€in€the€district€court,€the€Cavallaros€argueÐ ð#@( Ðthat€these€documents€are€privileged€under€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòKovelóó,Ð €%Ð * Ð296€F.2d€918€(2d€Cir.€1961),€despite€having€been€either€created€byÐ '`", Ðor€disclosed€to€Ernst€&€Young,€ò òó óbecause€Ernst€&€Young€aided€Hale€andÐ  (ð#. Ðâ âDorr€in€providing€legal€adviceò òó ó.€€They€also€argue€that€the€documentsÐ 0*€%0 Ðfall€within€the€common„interest€exception€to€the€rule€thatÐ ° Ðdisclosure€to€a€third€party€waives€the€attorney„client€privilege.€Ð @ Ðâ âà ` àAssuming€arguendo€that€this€circuit€would€adopt€the€òòKovelóóÐ Ð  Ðrule,€we€conclude€that€the€documents€are€not€privileged.€€We€followÐ ` ° Ðsomewhat€different€reasoning€than€the€district€court.€€We€need€notÐ ð @ Ðdecide€whether,€in€all€instances,€the€attorney€or€client€(asÐ € Ð  Ðopposed€to€some€third€party)€must€hire€the€accountant€in€order€toÐ `  Ðsustain€a€privilege€under€òòKovelóó.€€òòKovelóó€requires€that€to€sustain€aÐ  ð  Ðprivilege€an€accountant€must€be€"necessary,€or€at€least€highlyÐ 0€  Ðuseful,€for€the€effective€consultation€between€the€client€and€theÐ À Ðlawyer€which€the€privilege€is€designed€to€permit."€òòóó€296€F.2d€atÐ P  Ð922.€€Here,€no€party€hired€Ernst€&€Young€for€this€purpose.€òòóóÐ à0 ÐTherefore,€the€attorney„client€privilege€did€not€extend€to€theÐ pÀ Ðdocuments€in€question€under€the€òòKovelóó€doctrine.€€Having€found€thatÐ P Ðthe€documents€were€not€covered€by€the€attorney„client€privilege,€weÐ à Ðalso€conclude€that€they€cannot€fall€within€the€common„interestÐ  p Ðexception,€which€presumes€a€valid€underlying€privilege€in€the€firstÐ °  Ðplace.€€Consequently,€we€do€not€reach€the€district€court'sÐ @" Ðconclusion€that€"[u]nder€the€strict€confines€of€the€common„interestÐ Ð $ Ðdoctrine,€the€lack€of€representation€for€[the€sons€and€Camelot]Ð `"°& Ðvitiates€any€claim€to€a€privilege,"€òòCavallaroóó,€153€F.€Supp.€2d€atÐ ð#@( Ð61,€because€Ernst€&€Young€was€providing€accounting€services€and€soÐ €%Ð * Ðthe€òòKovelóó€extension€of€the€privilege€is€inapplicable€to€theÐ '`", Ðsummoned€documents,€all€of€which€were€created€by€or€disclosed€toÐ  (ð#. Ðâ âErnst€&€Young.€€€Ð 0*€%0 ÐÓ  Óò òÔ&  Ôâ âI.ó óÐ ° ÐÓð&Óà ` àThe€following€facts€are€undisputed€except€where€otherwiseÐ à Ðnoted.€€In€1976,€the€Cavallaros€Ô'°ÿ&Ôformed€Knight€Tool€Co.,€Inc.,€toÐ  p Ðmanufacture€tools€to€be€used€by€companies€such€as€McDonnellÐ °  ÐDouglas,€Polaroid,€and€Raytheon€to€assemble€their€products.€€SevenÐ @  Ðyears€later,€in€1983,€William€Cavallaro€and€one€of€his€three€sons,Ð Ð   ÐKenneth,€developed€a€rudimentary€glue„dispensing€machine,€which,Ð `°  Ðfor€several€years,€was€commercially€unsuccessful€due,€at€least€inÐ ð@  Ðpart,€to€difficulty€in€marketing€the€machÔ% €O Ôine.€€Ð €Ð  Ðà ` àIn€1987,€the€Cavallaros€formed€a€new€company,€CamelotÐ ` ÐSystems,€Inc.,€to€give€the€Cavallaros'€three€sons€an€opportunity€toÐ  ð Ðpursue€the€glue„dispensing€machine€business.€€In€addition€to€payingÐ 0€ Ðits€own€employees,€Knight€paid€the€salaries€of€Camelot's€employees.€Ð À ÐThe€three€sons€were€named€as€Camelot's€sole€shareholders€and,Ð P  Ðalthough€Knight€continued€to€make€the€glue„dispensing€machines,Ð à0 ÐCamelot€became€the€machines'€only€distributor.€€Knight€wasÐ pÀ ÐCamelot's€biggest€supplier.€€In€fact,€Camelot's€only€business€wasÐ P  Ðselling€glue„dispensing€machines€and€accessories€manufactured€byÐ à" ÐKnight.€€The€sons,€working€at€Camelot,€completely€redesigned€theÐ  !p$ ÐKnight€glue„dispensing€machine€and€developed€several€new€models€ofÐ °"& Ðthe€machine.€€As€a€result,€Camelot€became€a€lucrative€business.€€Ð @$( Ðà ` àIn€1992,€the€Cavallaros€contacted€attorney€Louis€HamelÐ Ð% !* ÐJr.€€Hamel€was€a€long„time€senior€partner€at€the€Hale€and€Dorr€lawÐ `'°", Ðfirm,€specializing€in€trusts€and€estates,€exempt€organizations,€andÐ ð(@$. Ðâ âpensions.€€He,€along€with€other€Hale€and€Dorr€attorneys,Ð €*Ð%0 Ðperiodically€counseled€the€Cavallaros€regarding€Knight€corporateÐ ° Ðmatters.€Ð @ Ðâ âà ` àThe€Cavallaros€again€contacted€Hamel,€in€October€1994,Ð Ð  Ðthis€time€for€help€with€estate€and€retirement€planning.€€HamelÐ ` ° Ðconsidered,€among€other€things,€potential€transfer€tax€issuesÐ ð @ Ðarising€in€the€context€of€the€close€business€and€familyÐ € Ð  Ðrelationships€between€Knight€and€Camelot.€€Between€December€19,Ð `  Ð1994,€and€December€31,€1995,€Hale€and€Dorr€provided€legal€advice€toÐ  ð  ÐKnight€and€the€Cavallaros,€acting€on€Knight's€behalf,€with€respectÐ 0€  Ðto€the€merger€of€Knight€into€Camelot.€€Hale€and€Dorr€advised€theÐ À ÐCavallaros€on,€among€other€things,€the€drafting€of€affidavitsÐ P  Ðpurporting€to€establish€the€pre„merger€values€of€Knight€andÐ à0 ÐCamelot.€Ð pÀ Ðà ` àWhile€the€Cavallaros€were€receiving€legal€advice€fromÐ P ÐHale€and€Dorr,€their€sons,€as€agents€of€Camelot,€had€begunÐ à Ðreceiving€tax€planning€advice€from€Ernst€&€Young.€€Camelot€beganÐ  p Ðmeeting€with€Ernst€&€Young€in€June€of€1994.€€On€November€16,€1994,Ð °  ÐErnst€&€Young€documented€its€relationship€with€Camelot€in€a€letterÐ @" Ðof€engagement,€stating€that€Ernst€&€Young€would€be€providing€aÐ Ð $ Ð"Review€of€Corporate€Structure€and€Recommendations,"€a€"TaxÐ `"°& ÐCheckup,"€and€"Transfer€Planning."€€The€letter,€addressed€to€DavidÐ ð#@( ÐFrac,€Camelot's€Chief€Financial€Officer,€further€stated€that€"[a]llÐ €%Ð * Ðadvice€and€other€services€we€provide€pursuant€to€this€engagementÐ '`", Ðare€solely€for€the€benefit€of€Camelot€.€.€.€and€not€for€the€benefitÐ  (ð#. Ðof€anyone€other€than€the€corporation€and€its€shareholders."€€FracÐ 0*€%0 Ðsigned€the€letter€and€returned€it€to€Ernst€&€Young.€Ð À+'2 Ðà ` àA€draft€of€the€invoice,€however,€for€Ernst€&€Young'sÐ ° Ðservices€rendered€through€December€31,€1994,€which€explicitlyÐ @ Ðincluded€tax€services€rendered€pursuant€to€the€November€14Ð Ð  Ðengagement€letter,€refers€to€services€rendered€to€both€Camelot€òòandóóÐ ` ° ÐKnight.€€It€was€addressed€and€mailed€to€Mrs.€Cavallaro€at€Knight.Ð ð @ ÐIn€addition,€Lawrence€Goodman,€of€Ernst€&€Young,€testified€in€hisÐ € Ð  ÐOctober€27,€2000,€deposition€that,€in€1994,€he€was€involved€inÐ `  Ðproviding€tax€advice€to€Camelot,€Knight,€and€the€Cavallaros.€€HeÐ  ð  Ðalso€testified€that€around€November€or€December€of€1995,€an€ErnstÐ 0€  Ð&€Young€employee€began€providing€services€to€both€Camelot€andÐ À ÐKnight.€€The€district€court,€nonetheless,€concluded€that€"theÐ P  Ðundisputed€evidence€is€that€Ernst€&€Young€was€paid€by,€and€workedÐ à0 Ðsolely€for,€Camelot€and€its€shareholders."€€òòCavallaroóó,€153€F.€Supp.Ð pÀ Ð2d€at€58.€Ð P Ðà ` àOn€December€15,€1994,€Ernst€&€Young€sent€a€letter€toÐ à ÐWilliam€Cavallaro€recommending€the€merger€of€Knight€and€Camelot€andÐ  p Ðsuggesting€a€strategy€for€minimizing€transfer€tax€liability.€€ErnstÐ °  Ð&€Young€understood€that€the€Cavallaros€and€their€sons€wouldÐ @" Ðconsider€selling€their€respective€companies,€and€proceeded€toÐ Ð $ Ðexplain€how€the€parties€might€structure€the€corporate€relationshipÐ `"°& Ðin€order€to€facilitate€a€transfer€of€some€of€the€proceeds€from€suchÐ ð#@( Ða€sale€from€the€Cavallaros€to€their€children€while€minimizing€taxÐ €%Ð * Ðliability.€€Ernst€&€Young€stated€that€the€letter€would€"serve€asÐ '`", Ðthe€discussion€document"€for€an€upcoming€meeting€between€Ernst€&Ð  (ð#. ÐYoung,€Hale€and€Dorr,€the€Cavallaros,€their€sons,€Kevin€McGillivaryÐ 0*€%0 Ð(an€accountant€working€for€Camelot),€and€David€Frac€of€Camelot.€Ð À+'2 Ðà ` àThe€letter€explained€that€the€IRS€would€scrutinize€theÐ ° Ðpre„merger€values€of€Knight€and€Camelot€to€determine€the€properÐ @ Ðallocation€of€the€post„merger€sale€proceeds€between€the€CavallarosÐ Ð  Ðand€their€sons.€€The€pre„merger€values€were€important€because€theyÐ ` ° Ðwould€be€the€benchmark€for€determining€whether€the€Cavallaros€hadÐ ð @ Ðdisguised€a€gift€to€their€sons€in€the€form€of€post„merger€stockÐ € Ð  Ðand,€if€so,€the€size€of€that€gift€and€the€resulting€transfer€taxÐ `  Ðliability.€€Ernst€&€Young€stated€that€the€pre„merger€profitÐ  ð  Ðdisparity€between€Knight€and€Camelot€did€not€reflect€the€trueÐ 0€  Ðvalues€of€the€companies:Ð À ÐÓÓà0 ` àThe€current€structure€and€resulting€profit€split€does€notÐ P  Ðseem€to€reflect€the€economic€reality€of€the€businessÐ h Ðarrangement.€€If€one€were€to€combine€the€entities,€asÐ à0 Ðcurrently€structured,€approximately€70%€of€the€profit€isÐ ¨ø Ðearned€by€the€Company€that€bears€no€risk€with€respect€toÐ pÀ Ðproduct€development,€has€no€employees,€does€not€bear€anyÐ 8ˆ Ðcosts€of€sales,€does€not€service€or€provide€any€warrantyÐ P Ðcoverage€on€the€product€or€own€any€of€the€technology.€InÐ È Ða€normal€distributor€relationship€....€thisÐ à Ðarrangement€does€not€exist.€ÐX¨` (#` (# ÐÌÓCÓThe€IRS,€Ernst€&€Young€said,€would€likely€attribute€most€of€theÐ è8 Ðvalue€of€the€post„merger€corporation€to€the€Cavallarosò òó ó,€which€wouldÐ xÈ! Ðdefeat€the€tax€saving€goal€of€allocating€most€of€the€profits€of€theÐ  X# Ðpre„merger€corporations€to€their€sons.€€The€letter€stated€thatÐ ˜!è% Ð"[b]ased€on€the€facts€that€exist€today,€it€would€be€hard€to€justifyÐ (#x' ÐCamelot€taking€more€than€a€small€amount€of€the€allocated€proceeds"Ð ¸$ ) Ðfrom€a€sale€of€the€businesses.€€More€specifically,€Ernst€&€YoungÐ H&˜!+ Ðsuggested€that,€upon€merger,€as€much€as€85%€of€the€shares€of€theÐ Ø'(#- Ðmerged€entity€would€go€to€the€Cavallaros,€with€only€15%€of€theÐ h)¸$/ Ðâ âshares€going€to€their€sons.Ð ø*H&1 Ðà ` àIt€appears€that€the€Cavallaros€desired€a€post„mergerÐ ° Ðâ âdistribution€more€favorable€to€their€sons,€but€that€a€post„mergerÐ @ Ðredistribution€would€create€significant€transfer€tax€liability.€Ð Ð  ÐErnst€&€Young€proposed€a€solution.€€Ernst€&€Young€recommended€aÐ ` ° Ð"two€step€approach"€to€"eliminate[€]€the€exposure€related€toÐ ð @ Ðreallocation€of€income."€€Step€one€was€to€merge€Knight€and€Camelot.€Ð € Ð  ÐStep€two€"involve[d]€the€gifting€of€stock€in€the€merged€entity€byÐ `  Ð[the€Cavallaros]€to€[their€sons]€in€the€amounts€that€would€resultÐ  ð  Ðin€the€desired€ownership€split."€€Ernst€&€Young€recommended€thatÐ 0€  Ðthe€gifting€be€done€using€a€Grantor€Retained€Annuity€Trust.€€ThisÐ À Ðgifting€was€necessary,€according€to€Ernst€&€Young,€because€of€theÐ P  Ðreal€pre„merger€distribution€of€assets,€which€heavily€favoredÐ à0 ÐKnight€and€the€Cavallaros€and€disfavored€Camelot€and€the€sons.€€Ð pÀ Ðà ` àPrior€to€December€19,€1994,€the€parties€agree€that€ErnstÐ P Ð&€Young€and€Hale€and€Dorr€were€not€working€together€or€in€aÐ à Ðcoordinated€fashion,€even€if€each€firm€knew€that€the€other€wasÐ  p Ðsomehow€involved€in€advising€the€Cavallaros,€their€sons,€or€theÐ °  Ðcompanies.€€On€December€19,€the€Cavallaros,€their€sons,€a€CamelotÐ @" Ðaccountant,€accountants€from€Ernst€&€Young,€and€at€least€one€lawyerÐ Ð $ Ðfrom€Hale€and€Dorr€met€as€planned.€€This€meeting€is€important€toÐ `"°& Ðthe€case€because€the€Cavallaros€assert€that,€at€this€meeting,Ð ð#@( Ð"Ernst€&€Young€began€assisting€Hale€and€Dorr€with€respect€toÐ €%Ð * Ðproviding€advice€on€transfer€tax€issues."€€The€Cavallaros€say€thatÐ '`", ÐErnst€&€Young€continued€in€this€role,€as€an€assistant€to€Hale€andÐ  (ð#. Ðâ âDorr,€through€1995.€€At€the€meeting,€neither€Camelot€nor€the€sonsÐ 0*€%0 Ðwere€represented€by€an€attorney;€Hale€and€Dorr€represented€only€theÐ ° ÐCavallaros.€€Ð @ Ðâ âà ` àIt€is€unclear€what€happened€next.€€As€the€IRS€has€stated,Ð Ð  Ðthis€is,€at€least€in€part,€what€they€are€attempting€to€investigateÐ ` ° Ðby€way€of€the€challenged€subpoena.€€What€we€do€know€is€that€theÐ ð @ ÐCavallaros€did€not€follow€Ernst€&€Young's€December€15,€1994,Ð € Ð  Ðrecommendations.€€Instead,€on€May€23,€1995,€Mr.€Cavallaro€and€oneÐ `  Ðof€his€sons€signed€affidavits€that€were€at€odds€with€Ernst€&Ð  ð  ÐYoung's€conclusion€that€"it€would€be€very€hard€to€justify€CamelotÐ 0€  Ðtaking€more€than€a€small€amount€of€the€allocated€proceeds"€from€aÐ À Ðsale€of€the€businesses.€€Hale€and€Dorr,€not€Ernst€&€Young,€preparedÐ P  Ðthese€affidavits.€€In€these€two€separate,€but€nearly€identicalÐ à0 Ðaffidavits,€Mr.€Cavallaro€and€his€son€stated€that€Knight€hadÐ pÀ Ðtransferred,€for€no€compensation,€its€glue„dispensing€machineÐ P Ðtechnology€to€Camelot€when€Camelot€was€formed€in€1987.€€They€statedÐ à Ðthat,€at€the€time€of€the€transfer,€the€technology€"had€noÐ  p Ðascertainable€value,"€"had€no€reasonable€prospect€of€realizing€aÐ °  Ðprofit,"€and€was€"no€more€than€a€promising€but€raw€idea."€€TheyÐ @" Ðstated€that€Camelot€"entirely€redesigned€the€original€dispensingÐ Ð $ Ðproduct."€€Knight€and€Camelot€then€supplemented€these€affidavitsÐ `"°& Ðwith€a€confirmatory€bill€of€sale,€also€dated€May€23,€1995,Ð ð#@( Ðpurporting€to€confirm€the€previously€undocumented€gift€from€KnightÐ €%Ð * Ðto€Camelot.€€The€Cavallaros€say€that€Hale€and€Dorr€had€preparedÐ '`", Ðdrafts€of€all€of€these€documents€before€the€December€19,€1994,Ð  (ð#. Ðâ âmeeting.€Ð 0*€%0 Ѐà ` àThis€claimed,€undocumented€transfer€was€important€to€theÐ ° Ðâ âpre„merger€valuation€of€the€companies€and€hence€to€the€correctÐ @ Ðpost„merger€distribution€of€shares.€€On€December€31,€1995,€KnightÐ Ð  Ðmerged€into€Camelot.€€As€part€of€the€merger,€the€CavallarosÐ ` ° Ðreceived€19%€of€Camelot's€stock.€€This€allocation€was€based€onÐ ð @ ÐErnst€&€Young's€December€31,€1995,€valuation€of€the€companies,Ð € Ð  Ðwhich€reflected€the€alleged,€but€undocumented,€technology€transfer.€Ð `  ÐErnst€&€Young's€December€1995€valuation,€attributing€most€of€theÐ  ð  Ðvalue€of€the€post„merger€corporation€to€Camelot,€was€at€odds€withÐ 0€  Ðits€1994€suggestion€that€Camelot€shares€would€form€only€a€smallÐ À Ðpart€of€the€post„merger€corporation's€value.€€On€July€1,€1996,€theÐ P  Ðmerged€corporation€was€sold€for€approximately€$97€million.€€TheÐ à0 Ð1995€merger,€based€on€the€1995€valuation,€resulted€in€aÐ pÀ Ðdistribution€of€assets€to€the€Cavallaros'€sons€that€substantiallyÐ P Ðreduced€the€Cavallaros'€transfer€tax€liabilities.€Ð à Ðà ` àSuspicious€of€these€circumstances,€the€IRS€began€a€taxÐ  p Ðfraud€investigation€into€the€Cavallaros'€correct€federal€taxÐ °  Ðliabilities€for€the€years€1987€through€1996.€€The€investigationÐ @" Ðfocused€on€whether€the€Cavallaros€had€manufactured€a€prior€gift€toÐ Ð $ Ðtheir€children,€through€the€use€of€the€alleged€technology€transfer,Ð `"°& Ðto€avoid€transfer€taxes.€€The€IRS€sought€to€determine€whetherÐ ð#@( ÐKnight€was€undervalued€and€whether€Camelot€was€overvalued€at€theÐ €%Ð * Ðtime€of€the€merger€because,€if€this€were€the€case,€then€theÐ '`", ÐCavallaros€would€have€disguised€a€gift€to€their€sons€in€the€form€ofÐ  (ð#. Ðâ âpost„merger€stock.€€Ð 0*€%0 Ðà ` àAs€part€of€this€investigation,€the€IRS,€on€December€7,Ð ° Ðâ â1999,€issued€a€third„party€recordkeeping€summons€to€Ernst€&€Young.׃W×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р@ ÐThe€summons€began€by€requesting€"[a]ll€records€relating€to€[ErnstÐ Ð  Ð&€Young's]€engagements€with€William,€Patricia,€Paul,€Kenneth,€orÐ ` ° ÐJames€Cavallaro[€],€Knight€Tool€.€.€.€or€Camelot€Systems€.€.€.€atÐ ð @ Ðany€time€from€1984€through€1995."€€The€IRS€issued€the€summonsÐ € Ð  Ðbecause,€in€response€to€a€prior€summons€it€had€issued€in€theÐ `  Ðinvestigation,€it€had€obtained€a€copy€of€the€December€15,€1994,Ð  ð  ÐErnst€&€Young€letter,€which€it€believed€"to€be€materiallyÐ 0€  Ðinconsistent€with€subsequent€sworn€statements€made€[by]€WilliamÐ À ÐCavallaro€and€a€subsequent€valuation€rendered€by€Ernst€&€Young."ò òó ó€Ð P  ÐThe€IRS€stated€that€the€1994€valuation€"sets€forth€a€pre„mergerÐ à0 Ðanalysis€which€is€materially€inconsistent€with€a€subsequentÐ pÀ Ðvaluation€rendered€by€Ernst€&€Young€.€.€.€.€[and]€materially€atÐ P Ðodds€with€sworn€statements€submitted€by€William€Cavallaro."€€Ð à Ðà ` àThe€Cavallaros€moved€to€quash€the€summons€as€overly€broadÐ  p Ðand€calling€for€privileged€materials.€€They€argued€that€theÐ °  Ðsummoned€documents€are€privileged€because€Ernst€&€Young€helped€HaleÐ @" Ðand€Dorr€provide€legal€advice€beginning€on€December€19,€1994.€€TheyÐ ° Ðalso€argued€that€the€documents€fall€within€the€common„interestÐ @ Ðrule.Ð Ð  Ðà ` àSubsequently,€the€Cavallaros€provided€the€IRS€with€aÐ ` ° Ðsubstantial€number€of€documents,€including€excerpts€from€theÐ ð @ Ðdiaries€of€Ernst€&€Young€employees€who€worked€for€Knight€or€CamelotÐ € Ð  Ðand€what€the€Cavallaros€say€are€nearly€all€of€Knight's€andÐ `  ÐCamelot's€accounting€records.€€This€dispute€is€over€those€remainingÐ  ð  Ðdocuments€that€the€Cavallaros€have€refused€to€produce.€€Ð 0€  Ðà ` àThe€IRS€counterclaimed€for€enforcement€of€the€summons.€Ð À ÐOn€September€19,€2000,€the€district€court€heard€arguments€andÐ P  Ðauthorized€the€IRS€to€depose€Lawrence€Goodman,€a€senior€manager€inÐ à0 ÐErnst€&€Young's€tax€department,€primarily€to€determine€whether€anyÐ pÀ Ðadditional€documents€existed€relating€to€Ernst€&€Young's€work€forÐ P Ðthe€Cavallaros,€their€sons,€and€the€two€companies.€€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð à Ð30(b)(6).€€After€the€deposition,€Hale€and€Dorr€provided€the€IRSÐ  p Ðwith€an€amended€privilege€log€and€a€letter€stating€the€reasons€whyÐ °  Ðit€believed€each€of€the€documents€in€the€log€to€be€privileged.€€Ð @" Ðà ` àOn€July€27,€2001,€the€district€court€denied€theÐ Ð $ ÐCavallaros'€petition€to€quash€and€allowed€the€government's€motionÐ `"°& Ðto€enforce€the€summons.€€òòCavallaroóó,€153€F.€Supp.€2d€52.€€TheÐ ð#@( Ðdistrict€court€noted€that€the€communications€in€question€„„€thatÐ €%Ð * Ðis,€those€documents€that€the€Cavallaros€continued€to€assert€wereÐ '`", Ðprivileged€„„€fell€into€three€categories:€"(1)€notes€from€theÐ  (ð#. ÐDecember€19,€1994€meeting€addressing€transfer€tax€issues;€(2)Ð 0*€%0 Ðfollow„up€communications€arising€from€the€Dec.€19th€meeting;€andÐ À+'2 Ð(3)€subsequent€communications€addressing€the€merger€of€the€twoÐ ° Ðcompanies."€€òòId.óó€at€56.€€These€same€categories€of€documents€remainÐ @ Ðat€issue.׃N×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ð  Ðà ` àThe€district€court€reasoned€that€the€documents€were€notÐ ` ° Ðprivileged€under€òòKovelóó,€296€F.2d€918,€because€the€Cavallaros€hadÐ ð @ Ðfailed€to€demonstrate€that€one€of€the€key€elements€of€a€òòKovelóóÐ € Ð  Ðprivilege€was€met:€that€is,€the€Cavallaros€had€not€shown€that€ErnstÐ `  Ð&€Young's€role€was€to€facilitate€communications,€between€theÐ  ð  ÐCavallaros€and€Hale€and€Dorr,€made€for€the€purpose€of€obtainingÐ 0€  Ðlegal€advice.€€òòCavallaroóó,€153€F.€Supp.€2d€at€58.€€The€"case€doesÐ À Ðnot€fit€into€the€òòKovelóó€paradigm,"€the€district€court€held,€becauseÐ P  ÐErnst€&€Young,€at€all€times,€acted€as€an€agent€of€Camelot€and€theÐ à0 Ðsons,€not€as€an€agent€of€Hale€and€Dorr€or€the€Cavallaros.€€òòId.óó€atÐ pÀ Ð59.€€Ð P Ðà ` àAs€to€the€common„interest€argument,€the€district€courtÐ à Ðconcluded€that,€at€the€December€19,€1994,€meeting,€and€goingÐ  p Ðforward,€Hale€and€Dorr€represented€only€the€Cavallaros,€andÐ °  Ðpossibly€Knight,€but€not€the€sons€or€Camelot.€€òòId.óó€at€61.€Ð @" ÐTherefore,€the€district€court€held€that,€"[u]nder€the€strictÐ Ð $ Ðconfines€of€the€common„interest€doctrine,€the€lack€ofÐ ° Ðrepresentation€for€the€remaining€parties€vitiates€any€claim€to€aÐ @ Ðprivilege."€€òòId.óó€€"[B]ecause€only€one€party€to€this€purportedÐ Ð  Ðcommon„interest€arrangement€was€represented€by€counsel,"€theÐ ` ° Ðdistrict€court€held,€"there€is€no€valid€claim€of€privilege€underÐ ð @ Ðthe€common„interest€doctrine."€€òòId.óó€at€62.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð € Ð  Ðò òÓ  ÓÔ& p ÔII.Ð `  Ðó óÓyÓà ` à"On€an€appeal€respectÔ'pøyÔing€a€privilege€claim,€the€standardÐ ð@  Ðof€review€depends€on€the€issue."€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòMass.€Inst.€ofÐ €Ð  ÐTech.óó,€129€F.3d€681,€683€(1st€Cir.€1997).€€We€review€district€courtÐ ` Ðrulings€on€questions€of€law€de€novo;€we€review€district€court€factÐ  ð Ðfindings€for€clear€error;€and€we€review€"discretionary€judgmentsÐ 0€ Ðsuch€as€evidentiary€rulings"€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòId.óó€€HereÐ À Ðthe€parties€contest€the€formulation€of€both€the€òòKovelóó€doctrine€andÐ P  Ðthe€common„interest€doctrine,€legal€questions€which€we€review€deÐ à0 Ðnovo.€€The€parties€also€contest€the€district€court's€findings€ofÐ pÀ Ðfact.€€Indeed,€the€Cavallaros€assert€that€"the€District€Court€foundÐ P  Ðno€facts,"€a€claim€which€is€an€overstatement.Ð à" Ðà ` àNeither€the€United€States€Constitution,€nor€any€federalÐ  !p$ Ðstatute,€nor€any€Supreme€Court€rule€governs€the€proper€scope€of€theÐ °"& Ðattorney„client€privilege€in€this€case.€€Nor€does€state€law€provideÐ @$( Ðthe€rule€of€decision.€€Fed.€R.€Evid.€501€states€that€in€such€cases,Ð Ð% !* Ðthe€issue€"shall€be€governed€by€the€principles€of€the€common€law€asÐ `'°", Ðthey€may€be€interpreted€by€the€courts€of€the€United€States€in€theÐ ° Ðlight€of€reason€and€experience."Ð @ Ðà ` àBefore€discussing€exceptions€to€the€attorney„clientÐ Ð  Ðprivilege,€and€exceptions€to€those€exceptions,€we€first€lay€out€theÐ ` ° Ðessential€elements€of€the€privilege,€as€described€by€Wigmore€andÐ ð @ Ðpreviously€endorsed€by€this€court:Ð € Ð  ÐÓÓà0 ` à(1)€Where€legal€advice€of€any€kind€is€sought€(2)€from€aÐ `  Ðprofessional€legal€adviser€in€his€capacity€as€such,€(3)Ð Ø(  Ðthe€communications€relating€to€that€purpose,€(4)€made€inÐ  ð  Ðconfidence€(5)€by€the€client,€(6)€are€at€his€instanceÐ h¸  Ðpermanently€protected€(7)€from€disclosure€by€himself€orÐ 0€  Ðby€the€legal€adviser,€(8)€except€the€protection€beÐ øH  Ðwaived.ÐÀ` (#` (# ÐÌÓ“€Ó8€J.H.€Wigmore,€òòEvidenceóó€ðð€2292,€at€554€(McNaughton€rev.€1961),Ð P  Ðòòquotedóó€òòinóó€òòMass.€Inst.€of€Tech.óó,€129€F.3d€at€684òòóó.€€Ð à0 Ðà ` àThe€rationale€for€the€privilege€is€that€safeguardingÐ pÀ Ðcommunications€between€attorney€and€client€encourages€disclosuresÐ P Ðby€the€client€to€the€lawyer€that€facilitate€the€client's€complianceÐ à Ðwith€the€law€and€better€enable€the€client€to€present€legitimateÐ  p Ðarguments€should€litigation€arise.€€òòMass.€Inst.€of€Tech.óó,€129€F.3dÐ °  Ðat€684.€€The€privilege€is€well€established;€indeed,€it€"firstÐ @" Ðappeared€in€the€sixteenth€century,"€P.R.€Rice,€òòAttorney„ClientÐ Ð $ ÐPrivilege€in€the€United€Statesóó€ðð€1:1,€at€6€(2d€ed.€1999),€and€it€isÐ `"°& Ð"the€oldest€of€the€privileges€for€confidential€communications€knownÐ ð#@( Ðto€the€common€law,"€òòUpjohn€Co.óó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€449€U.S.€383,€389Ð €%Ð * Ð(1981);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Wigmore,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€2290,€at€542.€€We€note,€but€doÐ '`", Ðnot€rely€on,€the€doctrine€of€construing€the€privilege€narrowly,Ð  (ð#. Ðwhich€has€particular€force€in€the€context€of€IRS€investigationsÐ 0*€%0 Ðgiven€the€"congressional€policy€choice€òòin€favor€of€disclosureóó€ofÐ À+'2 Ðall€information€relevant€to€a€legitimate€IRS€inquiry."׃B×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòUnitedÐ ° ÐStatesóó€v.€òòArthur€Young€&€Co.óó,€465€U.S.€805,€816€(1984).€€Even€inÐ @ Ðother€contexts,€there€is€a€more€general€reason€for€construing€theÐ Ð  Ðattorney„client€privilege€narrowly:€the€belief€that€"[t]heÐ ` ° Ðinvestigation€of€truth€and€the€enforcement€of€testimonial€dutyÐ ð @ Ðdemand€the€restriction,€not€the€expansion,€of€these€privileges."€Ð € Ð  ÐWigmore,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€2192,€at€73;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòIn€re€Grand€Jury€Subpoenaóó,Ð `  Ð274€F.3d€563,€571€(1st€Cir.€2001)€("[T]he€privilege€applies€only€toÐ  ð  Ðthe€extent€necessary€to€achieve€its€underlying€goal€of€ensuringÐ 0€  Ðeffective€representation€through€open€communication€between€lawyerÐ À Ðand€client.").€€Ð P  Ðà ` àIn€contrast€to€the€attorney„client€privilege,€"noÐ à0 Ðconfidential€accountant„client€privilege€exists€under€federalÐ pÀ Ðlaw."׃E˜×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòCouchóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€409€U.S.€322,€335€(1973),€òòquotedóó€òòinóóÐ P ÐòòArthur€Youngóó,€465€U.S.€at€817;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòArthurÐ à ÐAndersen€&€Co.óó,€623€F.2d€725,€729€(1st€Cir.€1980)€(declining€toÐ  p Ðdepart€from€òòCouchóó's€general€ruleòòóó).€€The€parties€to€this€litigationÐ °  Ðrecognize€as€much,€but€agree,€correctly,€that€accountant„clientÐ ° Ðcommunications€are€privileged€if€they€meet€the€traditionalÐ @ Ðrequirements€of€the€attorney„client€privilege.€€With€thisÐ Ð  Ðfoundation€laid,€we€turn€to€the€Cavallaros'€privilege€claims.€€Ð ` ° Ðà ` àThe€Cavallaros€argue€that€the€attorney„client€privilegeÐ ð @ Ðprotects€the€three€categories€of€subpoenaed€documents,€all€of€whichÐ € Ð  Ðare€in€Ernst€&€Young's€possession.€€For€a€communication€to€beÐ `  Ðcovered€by€the€attorney„client€privilege,€the€communication€must€beÐ  ð  Ðmade€in€confidence.€€Wigmore,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€2292,€at€554.€€AnotherÐ 0€  Ðrequirement€is€that€the€privilege€not€be€waived.€€òòId.óó€€The€presenceÐ À Ðof€third€parties€during€an€attorney„client€communication€is€oftenÐ P  Ðsufficient€to€undermine€the€"made€in€confidence"€requirement,€3Ð à0 ÐòòWeinstein's€Federal€Evidenceóó€ðð€503.15[3]€(J.M.€McLaughlin,€ed.,€2dÐ pÀ Ðed.€2002),€or€to€waive€the€privilege,€E.S.€Epstein,€òòThe€Attorney„Ð P ÐClient€Privilege€and€the€Work„Product€Doctrineóó€168„69,€189€(4th€ed.Ð à Ð2001).€Ð  p Ðà ` àHere,€however,€the€Cavallaros€invoke€two€doctrines€toÐ °  Ðsupport€their€claim€that€disclosing€the€subpoenaed€documents€toÐ @" ÐErnst€&€Young€neither€undermined€the€confidentiality€requirementÐ Ð $ Ðnor€waived€the€privilege.€€First,€they€say€that€the€documents€wereÐ `"°& Ðall€created€or€received€by€Ernst€&€Young€after€it€began€to€assistÐ ð#@( ÐHale€and€Dorr€in€rendering€legal€advice€and€so€the€documents€fallÐ €%Ð * Ðunder€the€òòKovelóó€doctrineòòóó,€which€they€characterize€as€holding€thatÐ '`", Ðthe€presence€of€some€third€parties€that€are€"necessary,€or€at€leastÐ  (ð#. Ðhighly€useful,"€to€facilitating€attorney„client€communication€doesÐ 0*€%0 Ðnot€destroy€the€privilege.€€296€F.2d€at€922.€€Second,€they€say€thatÐ À+'2 Ðthe€documents€fall€within€what€they€call€the€"common„interestÐ ° Ðprivilege."€€The€Cavallaros€bear€the€burden€of€establishing€thatÐ @ Ðthe€attorney„client€privilege€is€a€defense€to€the€enforcement€ofÐ Ð  Ðthe€IRS's€summons,€but,€if€the€privilege€is€established,€theÐ ` ° Ðgovernment€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€privilege€isÐ ð @ Ðdefeated€by€an€exception.€€ò òó óòòFed.€Deposit€Ins.€Corp.óó€v.€òòOgden€Corp.óó,Ð € Ð  Ð202€F.3d€454,€460€(1st€Cir.€2000).Ð `  Ðò òÔ&  ÔA.€òòKovelóóÐ  ð  Ðà ` àó óGenerally,€disclosing€attorney„client€communications€toÐ €Ð  ÐÔ' «™Ôa€third€party€undermines€the€privilege.€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòAckertóó,Ð ` Ð169€F.3d€136,€139€(2d€Cir.€1999)€(stating€that€"the€attorney„clientÐ  ð Ðprivilege€generally€applies€only€to€communications€between€theÐ 0€ Ðattorney€and€the€client");€òòWeinstein's€Federal€Evidenceóó,€òòsupraóó,€atÐ À Ððð€503.15[3];€Epstein,€òòsupraóó,€at€168„69,€189.€€An€exception€to€thisÐ P  Ðgeneral€rule€exists€for€third€parties€employed€to€assist€a€lawyerÐ à0 Ðin€rendering€legal€advice.€€Sup.€Ct.€Standard€503;€òòWeinstein'sÐ pÀ ÐFederal€Evidenceóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€ðððð€503.12[3][a]€and€[4][b].€€In€òòKovelóó,Ð P  Ðthe€Second€Circuit€held€that,€because€"the€complexities€of€modernÐ à" Ðexistence€prevent€attorneys€from€effectively€handling€clients'Ð  !p$ Ðaffairs€without€the€help€of€others,"€the€attorney„clientÐ °"& Ð"'privilege€must€include€all€the€persons€who€act€as€the€attorney'sÐ @$( Ðagents.'"€€296€F.2d€at€921€(quoting€Wigmore,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€2301,€atÐ Ð% !* Ð583).׃k×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð `'°", Ðà ` àThis€logic€applies€to€accountants:€€"[T]he€presence€of€anÐ ° Ðaccountant,€whether€hired€by€the€lawyer€or€by€the€client,€while€theÐ @ Ðclient€is€relating€a€complicated€tax€story€to€the€lawyer,€ought€notÐ Ð  Ðdestroy€the€privilege"€when€"the€accountant€is€necessary,€or€atÐ ` ° Ðleast€highly€useful,€for€the€effective€consultation€between€theÐ ð @ Ðclient€and€the€lawyer€which€the€privilege€is€designed€to€permit."€Ð € Ð  ÐòòId.óó€€at€922.€€The€communication,€however,€must€be€made€"for€theÐ `  Ðpurpose€of€obtaining€legal€advice€from€the€lawyer."€€òòId.óó€€"If€whatÐ  ð  Ðis€sought€is€not€legal€advice€but€only€accounting€service€.€.€.€,Ð 0€  Ðor€if€the€advice€sought€is€the€accountant's€rather€than€theÐ À Ðlawyer's,€no€privilege€exists."€€òòId.óó;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð P  ÐòòAdlmanóó,€68€F.3d€1495,€1500€(2d€Cir.€1995).€€Ð à0 Ðà ` àThe€district€court€concluded€that€"òòKovelóó€requires€thatÐ pÀ Ðeither€the€Cavallaros,€Knight,€or€Hale€and€Dorr€hired€Ernst€&€YoungÐ P Ðfor€the€purpose€of€facilitating€a€legal€communication€with€Hale€andÐ à ÐDorr."€€òòCavallaroóó,€153€F.€Supp.€2d€at€57.€€It€said€that€theÐ  p ÐCavallaros€must€show€that€"Ernst€&€Young€was€an€agent€of€Hale€andÐ °  ÐDorr,€Knight€or€the€Cavallaros."€€òòId.óó€at€58.€€We€know€that€òòóósuch€aÐ @" Ðshowing€is€not€sufficient€to€sustain€the€privilege:€as€the€districtÐ Ð $ Ðcourt€recognized,€an€attorney,€merely€by€placing€an€accountant€onÐ `"°& Ðâ âher€payroll,€does€not,€by€this€action€alone,€render€communicationsÐ ð#@( Ðbetween€the€attorney's€client€and€the€accountant€privileged.׃V×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòId.óóÐ ° Ðâ âat€57;€òòKovelóó,€296€F.2d€at€921.€€We€need€not€reach€the€question€ofÐ @ Ðwhether€such€a€showing€is€necessary.€€That€is,€we€need€notÐ Ð  Ðdetermine€whether,€in€all€instances,€the€attorney€or€client€(asÐ ` ° Ðopposed€to€some€third€party)€must€hire€the€accountant€in€order€toÐ ð @ Ðsustain€a€privilege€under€òòKovelóó.€€Ð € Ð  Ðà ` àHere,€the€record€does€not€show€that€any€party€hired€ErnstÐ `  Ð&€Young€to€assist€Hale€and€Dorr€in€providing€legal€advice,€and€weÐ  ð  Ðnote€that€the€agency€relationship€between€the€parties€is€relevantÐ 0€  Ðto,€but€not€dispositive€of,€this€question.€€òòKovelóó€requires€that€toÐ À Ðsustain€a€privilege€an€accountant€must€be€"necessary,€or€at€leastÐ P  Ðhighly€useful,€for€the€effective€consultation€between€the€clientÐ à0 Ðand€the€lawyer€which€the€privilege€is€designed€to€permit."€€òòKovelóó,Ð pÀ Ð296€F.2d€at€922.€€This€requirement€resolves€the€òòKovelóó€disputeÐ P Ðbecause€the€evidence€shows€that€Ernst€&€Young€was€not€employed€òòforÐ à Ðthis€purposeóó.€€Ð  p Ðà ` àWhether€Hale€and€Dorr,€as€opposed€to€the€Cavallaros€orÐ °  Ðtheir€sons,€hired€Ernst€&€Young€is,€as€the€district€courtÐ @" Ðrecognized,€probative€when€considering€whether€Ernst€&€Young€wasÐ Ð $ Ðemployed€to€help€Hale€and€Dorr€render€legal€advice.€€Typically,Ð `"°& Ð"[a]gents€of€an€attorney€are€.€.€.€retained€by€or€at€the€discretionÐ ð#@( Ðof€the€attorney€and€under€the€attorney's€supervision."€€Rice,Ð €%Ð * Ðòòsupraóó,€ðð€3:5,€at€30.€€Here,€the€bulk€of€the€evidence€supports€theÐ ° Ðclaim€that,€at€the€December€1994€meeting,€and€going€forward,€ErnstÐ @ Ð&€Young€acted€as€an€agent€for€the€sons€or€Camelot,€but€not€for€HaleÐ Ð  Ðand€Dorr,€the€Cavallaros,€or€Knight.Ð ` ° Ðòòóóà ` àNo€one€disputes€that€Camelot€initially€hired€Ernst€&Ð ð @ ÐYoung.€€Only€one€month€prior€to€the€December€1994€meeting,€Ernst€&Ð € Ð  ÐYoung€sent€Camelot€a€letter€of€engagement€stating€that€"[a]llÐ `  Ðadvice€and€other€services€we€provide€pursuant€to€this€engagementÐ  ð  Ðare€solely€for€the€benefit€of€Camelot€.€.€.€and€are€not€for€theÐ 0€  Ðbenefit€of€anyone€other€than€the€corporation€and€its€shareholders."€Ð À ÐCamelot's€CFO,€David€Frac,€signed€the€letter€and€returned€it€toÐ P  ÐErnst€&€Young.€€Everyone€also€agrees€that€Camelot€hired€Ernst€&Ð à0 ÐYoung€to€provide€financial€advice,€not€to€assist€any€lawyers.€Ð pÀ ÐPrior€to€the€December€1994€meeting,€Ernst€&€Young€was€not€in€anyÐ P Ðway€coordinating€its€accounting€advice€with€Hale€and€Dorr's€legalÐ à Ðadvice.€€Ð  p Ðà ` àThe€Cavallaros€say€that€things€changed€at€the€DecemberÐ °  Ð1994€meeting.€€At€that€meeting,€they€say,€it€was€"clear€to€allÐ @" Ðparties"€that€"Ernst€&€Young€began€assisting€Hale€and€Dorr€withÐ Ð $ Ðrespect€to€providing€advice€on€transfer€tax€issues."€€They€claimÐ `"°& Ðthat€Ernst€&€Young€continued€in€this€role,€as€an€assistant€to€HaleÐ ð#@( Ðand€Dorr€on€transfer€tax€and,€later,€merger€issues,€through€1995.€Ð €%Ð * ÐMore€specifically,€the€Cavallaros€argue€that€Ernst€&€Young€assistedÐ '`", ÐHale€and€Dorr€in€providing€legal€advice,€and€improved€that€advice,Ð  (ð#. Ðby,€"[a]mong€other€things,€.€.€.€review[ing]€the€factual€basis€ofÐ 0*€%0 ÐHale€and€Dorr's€analysis€to€help€determine€whether€it€wasÐ À+'2 Ðconsistent€with€the€accounting€records€that€Ernst€&€Young€hadÐ ° Ðreviewed."€€The€district€court€properly€rejected€the€argument.€€Ð @ Ðà ` àThe€district€court€found€that€"[t]he€Cavallaros€have€notÐ Ð  Ðproduced€any€contemporaneous€documentation€to€suggest€that,€as€ofÐ ` ° ÐDecember€19,€1994,€Ernst€&€Young's€professional€relationship€withÐ ð @ Ðthe€Cavallaro€parents€changed€in€a€way€that€would€trigger€aÐ € Ð  Ðprivilege."€€òòCavallaroóó,€153€F.€Supp.€2d€at€59.€€The€Cavallaros€urgeÐ `  Ðthat€the€district€court€overlooked€some€evidence.€€First,€that€theÐ  ð  Ðbill€for€Ernst€&€Young's€services€rendered€through€December€31,Ð 0€  Ð1994,€refers€to€services€rendered€to€both€Camelot€òòandóó€Knight.€Ð À ÐSecond,€that€Ernst€&€Young€mailed€this€bill€to€Mrs.€Cavallaro€atÐ P  ÐKnight.€€Third,€that€Lawrence€Goodman€testified€that,€in€1994,Ð à0 ÐErnst€&€Young€was€involved€in€providing€tax€advice€to€Camelot,Ð pÀ ÐKnight,€and€the€Cavallaros.€€The€district€court€did€not€mentionÐ P Ðthis€evidence,€but€it€does€not€change€the€outcome€here.€€None€of€itÐ à Ðis€"contemporaneous€documentation"€of€the€relationship€between€theÐ  p Ðparties€at€the€meeting.€€The€bill€was€presumably€drafted€afterÐ °  Ðservices€were€rendered.€€The€parties€never€formally€commemoratedÐ @" Ðthis€purportedly€changed€relationship.€€Mr.€Goodman's€statement€wasÐ Ð $ Ðmade€after€the€fact,€in€the€midst€of€litigation,€with€littleÐ `"°& Ðsupport€in€the€contemporaneous€record.€€The€district€court€did€notÐ ð#@( Ðclearly€err€when€it€found€as€it€did.€€Ð €%Ð * Ðòòà ` àóóBut€all€of€this€is€slightly€off„topic.€€The€agencyÐ '`", Ðquestion€aside,€the€evidence€is€strong€that€Ernst€&€Young€acted€toÐ  (ð#. Ðprovide€accounting€advice€rather€than€to€assist€Hale€and€Dorr€inÐ 0*€%0 Ðproviding€legal€advice.€€òòCf.óó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòJudsonóó,€322€F.2d€460,Ð À+'2 Ð462„63€(9th€Cir.€1963)€(òòKovelóó€exception€covers€documents€created€byÐ ° Ðan€accountant€at€an€attorney's€request€for€the€purpose€of€advisingÐ @ Ðand€defending€the€client)ò òó ó.€€Prior€to€the€December€1994€meeting,Ð Ð  ÐErnst€&€Young€provided€accounting€advice€to€Camelot€independent€ofÐ ` ° ÐHale€and€Dorr.€€After€that€meeting,€the€evidence€supports€theÐ ð @ Ðconclusion€that€Ernst€&€Young€and€Hale€and€Dorr€continued€to€workÐ € Ð  Ðon€their€respective,€separate€tracks,€albeit€in€a€more€coordinatedÐ `  Ðway.Ð  ð  Ðà ` àWe€are€skeptical€of€the€Cavallaros'€claim€that€Ernst€&Ð 0€  ÐYoung€was€present€to€assist€attorney€Hamel€of€Hale€and€Dorr,€whoÐ À Ðwas€a€senior€partner€of€over€twenty€years'€experience,€and€aÐ P  Ðspecialist€in€trusts€and€estates,€including,€necessarily,Ð à0 Ðconsequent€tax€advice.€€Recognizing€that€an€attorney's€experienceÐ pÀ Ðalone€is€not€prima€facie€evidence€that€an€accountant€was€notÐ P Ð"necessary,€or€at€least€highly€useful,"€òòKovelóó,€296€F.2d€at€922,€toÐ à Ðthe€lawyer€in€providing€legal€assistance,€we€note€that€when€a€partyÐ  p Ðhires€an€accountant€to€provide€accounting€advice,€and€only€laterÐ °  Ðhires€an€attorney€to€provide€legal€advice,€it€is€particularlyÐ @" Ðimportant€for€the€party€to€show€that€the€accountant€later€acted€asÐ Ð $ Ðan€agent€necessary€to€the€lawyer€in€providing€legal€advice.€€òòSeeóóÐ `"°& ÐòòóóRice,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€3:5,€at€33„34€(noting€that€"when€the€client€hasÐ ð#@( Ðpreviously€employed€the€agent€independent€of€the€attorney„clientÐ €%Ð * Ðrelationship,€to€perform€the€same€services€that€he€will€perform€forÐ '`", Ðthe€attorney[,].€.€.€.€[t]his€creates€a€risk€that€the€agent'sÐ  (ð#. Ðretention€by€the€attorney€is€simply€a€subterfuge");€òòid.óó€at€35€n.66Ð 0*€%0 Ð(citing€òòSwarthmore€Radiation€Oncology,€Inc.óó€v.€òòLapesóó,€No.€92„3055,Ð À+'2 Ð1994€U.S.€Dist.€LEXIS€1970,€at€*9„12€(E.D.€Pa.€Feb.€18,€1994)).€Ð ° ÐThe€Cavallaros€have€failed€to€make€a€sufficient€showing€here.€Ð @ Ðò òó óà ` àContrary€to€the€Cavallaros'€assertion€that€a€mere€findingÐ Ð  Ðthat€an€account€was€"useful"€is€all€that€is€required€under€òòKovelóó,Ð ` ° Ð"[t]he€available€case€law€indicates€that€the€'necessity'€elementÐ ð @ Ðmeans€more€than€just€useful€and€convenient.€€The€involvement€of€theÐ € Ð  Ðthird€party€must€be€nearly€indispensable€or€serve€some€specializedÐ `  Ðpurpose€in€facilitating€the€attorney„client€communications.€€MereÐ  ð  Ðconvenience€is€not€sufficient."€€Epstein,€òòsupraóó,€at€187òòóó.€€ò òó óTheÐ 0€  ÐCavallaros'€claim€that€Ernst€&€Young€"had€the€capacity€to€benefitÐ À Ðthe€quality€of€the€legal€advice€that€Hale€and€Dorr€would€render"Ð P  Ðand€that,€"[a]mong€other€things,"€Ernst€&€Young€double„checked€HaleÐ à0 Ðand€Dorr's€legal€advice€to€make€sure€"it€was€consistent€with€theÐ pÀ Ðaccounting€records€that€Ernst€&€Young€had€reviewed"€is€not€enoughÐ P Ðto€show€that€Ernst€&€Young€was€necessary,€or€at€least€highlyÐ à Ðuseful,€in€facilitating€Hale€and€Dorr's€provision€of€legal€advice.€Ð  p ÐThat€ends€the€matter.€€€Ð °  Ðò òB.€Common€Ô& p ÔInterestÐ @" Ðó óà ` àÔ'p@wÍÔThe€common„interest€doctrine€is€typically€understood€toÐ  !p$ Ðapply€"[w]hen€two€or€more€clients€consult€or€retain€an€attorney€onÐ °"& Ðparticular€matters€of€common€interest."€€òòWeinstein's€FederalÐ @$( ÐEvidenceóó,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€503.21[1];€Wigmore,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€2312,€at€603„09.€Ð Ð% !* ÐIn€such€a€situation,€"the€communications€between€each€of€them€andÐ `'°", Ðthe€attorney€are€privileged€against€third€parties."€€òòWeinstein'sÐ ð(@$. ÐFederal€Evidenceóó,€òòsupraóó,€ðð€503.21[1];€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòIn€re€Grand€JuryÐ €*Ð%0 ÐSubpoenaóó,€274€F.3d€at€573;€òòFed.€Deposit€Ins.€Corp.óó,€202€F.3d€atÐ ,`'2 Ð461.€€Similarly,€the€"privilege€applies€to€communications€made€byÐ ° Ðthe€client€or€the€client's€'lawyer€to€a€lawyer€representing€anotherÐ @ Ðin€a€matter€of€common€interest.'"€€òòWeinstein's€Federal€Evidenceóó,Ð Ð  Ðòòsupraóó,€òòóóðð€503.21[2]€(quoting€Sup.€Ct.€Standard€503(b)(3)).€€Ð ` ° Ðà ` àWhether€one€refers€to€either€or€both€of€these€instancesÐ ð @ Ðas€"common€interest,"€"joint€defense,"€"joint€client,"€or€"alliedÐ € Ð  Ðlawyer"€doctrines€does€not€change€the€outcome€of€this€case.€€TheÐ `  Ðcommon„interest€doctrine,€like€the€rule€announced€in€òòKovelóó,€is€"notÐ  ð  Ðan€independent€basis€for€privilege,€but€an€exception€to€the€generalÐ 0€  Ðrule€that€the€attorney„client€privilege€is€waived€when€privilegedÐ À Ðinformation€is€disclosed€to€a€third€party."€€Epstein,€òòsupraóó,€atÐ P  Ð196.€€Ð à0 Ðà ` àOur€resolution€of€the€Cavallaros'€òòKovelóó€argument€resolvesÐ pÀ Ðtheir€common„interest€claim€as€well.€€Although€the€district€courtÐ P Ðdirected€its€inquiry€toward€the€alignment€of€interests€between€allÐ à Ðof€the€parties€in€the€case€and€then€decided€that,€"[e]ven€if€thereÐ  p Ðwere€a€sufficient€commonality€of€interest,€.€.€.€.€[u]nder€theÐ °  Ðstrict€confines€of€the€common„interest€doctrine,€the€lack€ofÐ @" Ðrepresentation€for€[the€sons€and€Camelot]€vitiates€any€claim€to€aÐ Ð $ Ðprivilege,"€153€F.€Supp.€2d€at€60,€we€do€not€need€to€reach€theseÐ `"°& Ðissues.€€Ð ð#@( Ðà ` àErnst€&€Young€was€not€covered€by€the€attorney„clientÐ €%Ð * Ðrelationship€between€Hale€and€Dorr€and€its€clients.€€Even€if€theÐ '`", ÐCavallaros,€their€sons,€and€their€respective€companies€all€had€anÐ  (ð#. Ðexact€unanimity€of€interest,€it€would€not€render€communicationsÐ 0*€%0 Ðcreated€by€or€shared€with€Ernst€&€Young€privileged€when€Ernst€&Ð À+'2 ÐÑ=@¸Ñâ =âÑ  Ñâ =âÑ  ÑYoung€was€providing€accounting€services,€not€facilitatingÐ ° Ðcommunication€of€legal€advice€between€Hale€and€Dorr€and€itsÐ @ Ðclients.€€Ð Ð  Ðà ` àThe€common„interest€doctrine€prevents€clients€fromÐ ` ° Ðwaiving€the€attorney„client€privilege€when€attorney„clientÐ ð @ Ðcommunications€are€shared€with€a€third€person€who€has€a€commonÐ € Ð  Ðlegal€interest€with€respect€to€these€communications,€for€instance,Ð `  Ða€codefendant.€€The€doctrine€does€not€extend€to€prevent€waiver€whenÐ  ð  Ðan€accountant,€not€within€the€òòKovelóó€doctrine,€is€made€privy€to€theÐ 0€  Ðattorney„client€communications.€€In€such€an€instance,€theÐ À Ðaccountant€does€not€share€an€interest€in€receiving€legal€adviceÐ P  Ðfrom€the€lawyer€and€cannot€logically€be€said€to€have€an€interest€inÐ à0 Ðcommon€with€the€represented€party€or€parties.€€Under€òòKovelóó,€we€knowÐ pÀ Ðthat€when€a€client,€a€lawyer,€and€an€accountant€are€present,€theÐ P Ðaccountant's€presence€will€destroy€the€privilege€if€the€accountantÐ à Ðis€not€"necessary,€or€at€least€highly€useful,€for€the€effectiveÐ  p Ðconsultation€between€the€client€and€the€lawyer."€€296€F.2d€at€922.€Ð °  ÐIt€follows€that€the€client€„„€in€this€case€the€Cavallaros€„„€cannotÐ @" Ðresurrect€the€privilege€by€adding€another€party€(their€sons)€andÐ Ð $ Ðthat€party's€accountant€to€the€mix.€€This€is€true€even€if€the€sonsÐ `"°& Ðshare€a€common€interest€with€the€parents.€€To€hold€otherwise€wouldÐ ð#@( Ðbe€to€create€a€loophole€in€òòKovelóó€whereby€the€privilege€isÐ €%Ð * Ðundermined€when€a€client€and€his€attorney€disclose€information€toÐ '`", Ðan€accountant€who€is€not€"necessary,€or€at€least€highly€useful,€forÐ  (ð#. Ðthe€effective€consultation€between€the€client€and€the€lawyer,"€€296Ð 0*€%0 ÐF.2d€at€922,€but€the€privilege€is€preserved€when€the€client€bringsÐ À+'2 Ðanother€party€with€a€common€interest€on€board€and€that€otherÐ ° Ðparty's€accountant€is€present.€€Ð @ Ðà ` àThe€Cavallaros'€argument€that€every€party€to€theÐ Ð  Ðcommunication€need€not€have€his€own€lawyer€in€order€for€the€common„Ð ` ° Ðinterest€doctrine€to€apply,€although€relevant€to€the€districtÐ ð @ Ðcourt's€reasoning,€is€in€the€end€beside€the€point,€whether€or€notÐ € Ð  Ðthe€argument€is€valid.€€Our€conclusion€that€the€documents€are€notÐ `  Ðprivileged€under€òòKovelóó€resolves€the€common„interest€claim€becauseÐ  ð  Ðthe€common„interest€rule€presumes€a€valid€underlying€privilege.€Ð 0€  ÐThere€is€no€valid€underlying€privilege€here€because,€by€havingÐ À Ðdiscussions€with,€and€disclosing€the€documents€to,€Ernst€&€Young,Ð P  Ðan€accounting€firm€not€necessary€to€permit€Hale€and€Dorr€toÐ à0 Ðcommunicate€legal€advice€to€its€client,€the€Cavallaros€eitherÐ pÀ Ðwaived€the€attorney„client€privilege€or€undermined€the€privilege'sÐ P Ðconfidentiality€requirement.€€One€cannot€create€a€privilege,€whereÐ à Ðpreviously€there€was€none,€simply€by€introducing€a€third€partyÐ  p Ð(with€or€without€a€common€interest)€into€the€circle€within€whichÐ °  Ðdocuments€are€shared.€€Ð @" ÐÓ  Óò òIII.ó óÐ Ð $ ÐÓkçÓà ` àFor€these€reasons,€the€district€court's€judgment,€denyingÐ °"& Ðthe€Cavallaros'€motion€to€quash€the€summons€and€allowing€the€UnitedÐ @$( ÐStates's€motion€to€enforce€the€summons,€is€òòaffirmedóó.€€