063938P.pdf   07/20/2007  In Re: Green Grand Jury  v.  
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  06-3938
                          and No:  06-4030
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with John R. Gibson and Murphy,
   Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - attorney-client privilege. A client who has used his
   attorneys' assistance to perpetrate a fraud or a crime cannot assert the
   attorney-client work product privilege as to any documents generated in
   furtherance of his misconduct; an attorney who does not knowingly
   participate in the client's fraud or crime may assert the work product
   privilege as to his opinion work; district court drew appropriate line
   between ordinary work and shielded opinion fact work product; district
   court applied a proper standard to determine whether the government had
   provided the level of proof necessary to justify the application of the
   crime-fraud exception; without deciding whether the district court must
   look at countervailing evidence that a crime or fraud did not occur, here,
   the evidence was more than sufficient to establish a crime or fraud.
  
063938P.pdf   07/06/2007  In Re: Green Grand Jury  v.  
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  06-3938
                          and No:  06-4030
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with John R. Gibson and Murphy,
   Circuit Judges]
   Criminal case - Grand Jury Proceedings. Crime-fraud exception applies
   to attorney work product; a client who has used his attorney's assistance
   to perpetrate a crime or fraud cannot assert the work product privilege as
   to any document generated in furtherance of his misconduct; an attorney
   who does not knowingly participate in the client's crime or fraud may
   assert the work product privilege as her opinion work product; an
   attorney's fact work product is entitled to less than protection than her
   opinion work product and may be discovered upon prima facie evidence
   of a crime or fraud as to the client only and thus even when the attorney is
   unaware of the crime or fraud; here, the district court did not err in
   drawing the line between opinion and fact work product; attorneys'
   recollections of conversations with a client are protectable as opinion
   work product; prima facie case of fraud or crime does not have to
   established by clear and convincing evidence as such a standard would
   impede the grand jury's work; after reviewing other circuit's rulings as to
   whether contrary proof must be considered in determining if a crime or
   fraud has been committed, the court finds that it does not need to resolve
   the issue as even if the district court had considered the countervailing
   evidence it would not have affected the court's crime-fraud determination;
   court's crime-fraud determination was not an abuse of discretion.