United States v. Butts, 2:24-cr-00124

Lori Butts, owner of Lordan Care Adult Family Home, was indicted for healthcare and wire fraud, allegedly billing for unprovided caregiver services and converting funds for personal use.
The government's key evidence came from documents disclosed by Butts' former attorney, Paul Kasprowicz, who represented Butts and her company and responded to government subpoenas with 573 files.
Butts moved to exclude Kasprowicz’s testimony and all derivative evidence, claiming attorney-client privilege over many of the disclosed documents.
She requested an in-camera review of documents and an evidentiary hearing to determine if privilege applied and if it had been waived.
The government argued that the documents were not privileged or privilege had been waived, and therefore no hearing or inspection was warranted.
The magistrate judge addressed whether privilege applied, whether any privilege was waived, and if suppression or hearings were appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether disclosed documents are attorney-client privileged	Documents not privileged; mostly business records or already disclosed, and privilege waived.	Documents are privileged because shared with attorney during representation.	Not privileged; privilege not shown or waived.
Whether privilege was inadvertently waived	Disclosure was not inadvertent; production was intentional and prolonged, and no steps taken to prevent.	Disclosure by attorney was not authorized or was inadvertent; privilege intact.	Disclosure was intentional, not inadvertent; privilege waived.
Whether Kasprowicz’s and others' testimony should be excluded	No privileged information to exclude besides possibly Kasprowicz; others' testimony not privileged.	All Kasprowicz and derivative testimony is tainted and should be excluded.	No basis for exclusion; can address at trial as needed.
Whether in-camera review or evidentiary hearing is required	Not needed, as privilege claims are baseless on the face of record.	Needed to resolve factual disputes over privilege and waiver.	Not required; no disputed facts or prima facie claim.

United States v. BDO Seidman, 337 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2003) (setting standard for applying attorney-client privilege)
Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) (purpose and limits of attorney-client privilege)
Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) (privilege applies only where necessary to achieve its purpose)
United States v. Lawless, 709 F.2d 485 (7th Cir. 1983) (elements required to establish privilege)
United States v. White, 970 F.2d 328 (7th Cir. 1992) (not all attorney-handled information is privileged)
United States v. Frederick, 182 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 1999) (business documents do not become privileged by attorney review)