Supreme Court Evaluates Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege for Dual-Purpose Communications
On January 9, 2023, the US Supreme Court heard oral argument in the matter of In re Grand Jury, No. 21-1397, which asked the Court to determine whether “dual-purpose” communications involving both legal and business advice are protected by attorney-client privilege. Although the Court’s decision would have had significant consequences in particular to the daily work of in-house counsel, and other lawyers, who regularly engage in business and legal communications that cannot be easily parsed out from each other, the Court changed course and declined to resolve the case leaving the question to lower courts.
“A Primary Purpose” or “Significant Purpose” Test
The heart of the case was whether the Supreme Court would adopt a “primary purpose” test or a “significant purpose” test when evaluating dual-purpose communications. The Petitioner asked the Supreme Court to adopt the “significant purpose” test and overturn the commonly used “primary purpose” test, arguing that the latter requires courts to rank a dual-purpose communication’s purpose, which he called “an inherently impossible exercise.” The “significant purpose” test, on the other hand, would require a mere “genuine” legal purpose, which would provide predictability among the courts and promote open and frank communications between clients and their counsel
Conversely, the Respondent urged the Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit’s “primary purpose” test, arguing that a “primary purpose” test did not necessarily require courts to ascertain a primary purpose; instead, to the extent a non-legal primary purpose of a dual-purpose communication is discernable and the legal purpose was secondary or even equal in measure, the communication would be deemed privileged.
Implications of the Court’s Dismissal
Instead of resolving a much anticipated issue within the legal community, the Court dismissed In re Grand Jury stating that it shouldn’t have granted its review. The Court’s decision ultimately lets stand the Ninth Circuit “primary purpose” test—a commonly used test by many courts. The Court’s decision has several implications on counsels and litigation: (1) counsel, especially in-house counsel, may try to silo their legal and non-legal advice complicating their ability to provide legal advice in the midst of complex business discussions; (2) discovery privilege reviews will continue to be time intensive for cases involving large volumes of dual-purpose communications; and (3) the practical applicability of the “primary purpose” test will continue to be questioned given the modern era of electronic communications and discovery.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
“A Primary Purpose” or “Significant Purpose” Test
The heart of the case was whether the Supreme Court would adopt a “primary purpose” test or a “significant purpose” test when evaluating dual-purpose communications. The Petitioner asked the Supreme Court to adopt the “significant purpose” test and overturn the commonly used “primary purpose” test, arguing that the latter requires courts to rank a dual-purpose communication’s purpose, which he called “an inherently impossible exercise.” The “significant purpose” test, on the other hand, would require a mere “genuine” legal purpose, which would provide predictability among the courts and promote open and frank communications between clients and their counsel
Conversely, the Respondent urged the Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit’s “primary purpose” test, arguing that a “primary purpose” test did not necessarily require courts to ascertain a primary purpose; instead, to the extent a non-legal primary purpose of a dual-purpose communication is discernable and the legal purpose was secondary or even equal in measure, the communication would be deemed privileged.
Implications of the Court’s Dismissal
Instead of resolving a much anticipated issue within the legal community, the Court dismissed In re Grand Jury stating that it shouldn’t have granted its review. The Court’s decision ultimately lets stand the Ninth Circuit “primary purpose” test—a commonly used test by many courts. The Court’s decision has several implications on counsels and litigation: (1) counsel, especially in-house counsel, may try to silo their legal and non-legal advice complicating their ability to provide legal advice in the midst of complex business discussions; (2) discovery privilege reviews will continue to be time intensive for cases involving large volumes of dual-purpose communications; and (3) the practical applicability of the “primary purpose” test will continue to be questioned given the modern era of electronic communications and discovery.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Articles
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
On January 9, 2023, the US Supreme Court heard oral argument in the matter of In re Grand Jury, No. 21-1397, which asked the Court to determine whether “dual-purpose” communications involving both legal and business advice are protected by attorney-client privilege. Although the Court’s decision would have had significant consequences in particular to the daily work of in-house counsel, and other lawyers, who regularly engage in business and legal communications that cannot be easily parsed out from each other, the Court changed course and declined to resolve the case leaving the question to lower courts.
“A Primary Purpose” or “Significant Purpose” Test
The heart of the case was whether the Supreme Court would adopt a “primary purpose” test or a “significant purpose” test when evaluating dual-purpose communications. The Petitioner asked the Supreme Court to adopt the “significant purpose” test and overturn the commonly used “primary purpose” test, arguing that the latter requires courts to rank a dual-purpose communication’s purpose, which he called “an inherently impossible exercise.” The “significant purpose” test, on the other hand, would require a mere “genuine” legal purpose, which would provide predictability among the courts and promote open and frank communications between clients and their counsel
Conversely, the Respondent urged the Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit’s “primary purpose” test, arguing that a “primary purpose” test did not necessarily require courts to ascertain a primary purpose; instead, to the extent a non-legal primary purpose of a dual-purpose communication is discernable and the legal purpose was secondary or even equal in measure, the communication would be deemed privileged.
Implications of the Court’s Dismissal
Instead of resolving a much anticipated issue within the legal community, the Court dismissed In re Grand Jury stating that it shouldn’t have granted its review. The Court’s decision ultimately lets stand the Ninth Circuit “primary purpose” test—a commonly used test by many courts. The Court’s decision has several implications on counsels and litigation: (1) counsel, especially in-house counsel, may try to silo their legal and non-legal advice complicating their ability to provide legal advice in the midst of complex business discussions; (2) discovery privilege reviews will continue to be time intensive for cases involving large volumes of dual-purpose communications; and (3) the practical applicability of the “primary purpose” test will continue to be questioned given the modern era of electronic communications and discovery.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
“A Primary Purpose” or “Significant Purpose” Test
The heart of the case was whether the Supreme Court would adopt a “primary purpose” test or a “significant purpose” test when evaluating dual-purpose communications. The Petitioner asked the Supreme Court to adopt the “significant purpose” test and overturn the commonly used “primary purpose” test, arguing that the latter requires courts to rank a dual-purpose communication’s purpose, which he called “an inherently impossible exercise.” The “significant purpose” test, on the other hand, would require a mere “genuine” legal purpose, which would provide predictability among the courts and promote open and frank communications between clients and their counsel
Conversely, the Respondent urged the Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit’s “primary purpose” test, arguing that a “primary purpose” test did not necessarily require courts to ascertain a primary purpose; instead, to the extent a non-legal primary purpose of a dual-purpose communication is discernable and the legal purpose was secondary or even equal in measure, the communication would be deemed privileged.
Implications of the Court’s Dismissal
Instead of resolving a much anticipated issue within the legal community, the Court dismissed In re Grand Jury stating that it shouldn’t have granted its review. The Court’s decision ultimately lets stand the Ninth Circuit “primary purpose” test—a commonly used test by many courts. The Court’s decision has several implications on counsels and litigation: (1) counsel, especially in-house counsel, may try to silo their legal and non-legal advice complicating their ability to provide legal advice in the midst of complex business discussions; (2) discovery privilege reviews will continue to be time intensive for cases involving large volumes of dual-purpose communications; and (3) the practical applicability of the “primary purpose” test will continue to be questioned given the modern era of electronic communications and discovery.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Articles
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Associate Steven Arango to Speak at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair
On September 18, Associate Steven Arango will speak on a panel at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair (VLCF), the only legal career fair in the United States dedicated to veterans, active-duty service members, and military spouses.
September 18, 2026
Publications
In American Banker, Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Weighs in on OCC's Handling of Fintech Bank Charter Applications
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon spoke with American Banker about how the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is approaching bank charter applications from fintechs, amid a growing wave of companies seeking charters from federal regulators.
August 18, 2026
Event
Partner David Greenwald to Speak at PLI Program on Privilege and AI
On August 17, David Greenwald will speak at "Fitting New “Tech” Into the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection," a virtual program hosted by the Practising Law Institute (PLI).
August 17, 2026
Publications
Special Counsel Kimberly Cook Featured in FCBA Member Spotlight
The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) featured Kimberly Cook in its Member Spotlight series.
August 13, 2026
Recognition
Three Jenner & Block Partners Named to Crain's New York Business' 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law List
Crain's New York Business recognized Jenner & Block Partners Anthony Barkow, Alison Stein, and Damian Williams among its 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law.
August 10, 2026