Taylor Lohmeyer Law Firm v. United States, 957 F.3d 505

Taylor Lohmeyer Law Firm (the Firm), a Texas estate- and tax-planning firm, received a 2018 John Doe IRS summons seeking records (1995–2017) about U.S. clients for whom the Firm established or maintained foreign accounts/entities.
The John Doe summons was issued after an ex parte showing based on IRS Agent Russell-Hendrick’s declarations arising from an audit of Taxpayer-1, who had used the Firm to form offshore entities and later admitted substantial unreported income and paid a settlement.
The Firm petitioned to quash, arguing a blanket attorney-client privilege claim: client identities and all responsive documents are privileged because disclosure would reveal confidential communications.
The Government filed a counter-petition to enforce the summons; the district court granted enforcement on May 15, 2019, noting blanket privilege assertions are disfavored and ordering the Firm could assert privilege only via a document-by-document privilege log.
The Firm produced no privilege log, the district court closed the case, and the Firm appealed solely on attorney-client privilege grounds.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed: the narrow exception protecting client identities did not apply, the Agent’s declarations did not reveal specific legal advice, and the Firm failed to meet its burden without a privilege log.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether attorney-client privilege protects client identities and all responsive documents from a John Doe summons	Firm: blanket privilege; client identities are privileged when disclosure would expose confidential communications	Gov: privilege is narrow; client identities usually not privileged; exception rare and requires showing identity would reveal privileged communications	Held: Exception inapplicable; broad summons does not compel disclosure of a privileged communication; enforcement affirmed
Whether IRS declarations already disclosed the substance of legal advice (Liebman analog) so identifying clients would reveal privileged communications	Firm: agent’s declaration shows content of advice; combined with identities it would reveal communications	Gov: declarations establish a reasonable basis for the summons but do not disclose specific legal advice; distinguishable from Liebman	Held: Declarations did not reveal substantive advice; Liebman is distinguishable; privilege not shown
Whether the Firm could rely on a categorical privilege without a document-by-document privilege log	Firm: all responsive documents are privileged as a matter of law	Gov: blanket claims are disfavored; privilege must be asserted per document and supported by a log	Held: Firm failed to meet heavy burden; district court properly required a privilege log; no log produced, enforcement proper

Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (recognizes enforcement orders of IRS summonses are appealable)
Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440 (attorney-client privilege is an appropriate ground to challenge an IRS summons)
United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805 (policy favoring disclosure in IRS investigations)
In re Avantel, S.A., 343 F.3d 311 (Fifth Circuit on limited scope of review for privilege determinations)
EEOC v. BDO USA, L.L.P., 876 F.3d 690 (privilege is fact-specific; proponent bears burden)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena for Attorney Representing Criminal Defendant Reyes-Requena, 926 F.2d 1423 (narrow exception protecting client identity when identity would reveal confidential motive)
United States v. Liebman, 742 F.2d 807 (illustrative Third Circuit case where affidavit revealed content of communications making identities privileged)
United States v. BDO Seidman, 337 F.3d 802 (clients’ identities not privileged where disclosure of identity alone does not reveal confidential communications)