Judge Arthur Gonzalez, in In re Enron Corp. (Enron Broadband Services LP v. Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of America), held that communications which Enron was trying to exclude under the attorney-client privilege could indeed be elicited from witnesses because the crime-fraud exception to the privilege applied. Generally, the attorney-client privilege protects information so that a witness has the right to refuse to disclose confidential communications between himself and his attorney. However, if the party seeking to compel disclosure of the otherwise confidential communications can show that there was fraud and that the communication was reasonably related to that fraud, then the crime-fraud exception applies and the communication would no longer be privileged or protected. The purpose of the crime-fraud exception is to prevent people from using the services of a lawyer in order to plan or commit a crime or fraud. During the depositions of David Thames and Brian Spector, the former manager of finance and a director at Enron Broadband, Travelers tried to obtain information about communications between the deponents and Enron Broadband's former in-house attorneys. Their employer, Enron Broadband, asserted that the communications were protected by the attorney-client privilege and refused to allow the questioning. In response, Travelers moved to compel disclosure of the communications at issue and argued that because fraud was involved and Enron's in-house counsel acted as a business advisor and not as attorneys, the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege applied. The court agreed with Travelers and held because the proposed deponent's communications with counsel related to the alleged fraud, he would grant Travelers' motion to compel. For more information, please visit: http://biz.yahoo.com/law/ and click on Judge Rules No Privilege in Enron Fraud Case Ray Copyright © All Rights Reserved