1.  Generally

This article discusses statutory privileges protecting the confidentiality of communications between accountants and their clients.  There has never been 33 ALR4th 539, + 94 Supp.a common law accountant-client privilege.1   Many states, however, have created such a privilege by statute.2 Some recognize a privilege, but not where the information is sought by subpoena.3  The others recognize no privilege.4  No acountant-client privilege is recognized under the federal rules5 or federal common law.6  See also PRIVILEGES–Choice of Law.

Because statutes creating an account-client privilege are in derogation of common law, they are strictly construed in order to limit their application.7

2.  Choice of Law

2(a).  Federal Courts

Under FRE 501, federal courts look to federal common law in deciding privilege issues in criminal cases, in civil cases where a federal question is involved, or where a constitutional privilege is asserted.  In diversity cases, the federal courts apply state law insofar as the relevant claim or defense is controlled by state law.  Where there is a choice of law to be made, the court applies the choice of law rules of the forum state.8  See PRIVILEGE § 2.  Choice of Law.

2(a). State Choice of Law Rules

There is a split of authority as to whether privileges are procedural or substantive law. See PRIVILEGE § 2.  Choice of Law.  If procedural, then the law of the forum state will be applied.  Ordinarily this will be wherever the trial court sits, but not always: where the privilege is asserted in proceedings to compel compliance with a subpoena served in another state, and a local court (federal or state) is called upon to rule, that court may apply local law as the law of the “forum”.9)

Under the Restatement of Conflicts 2d, the law of the state with the most significant contacts with the communication applies to the question of admissibility, unless there is some countervailing policy in the forum state. 10 See PRIVILEGE § 2.  Choice of Law.

3.  Standing to Assert or Waive Privilege

With the exception of the Illinois law, all of the state privilege statutes create a privilege which is personal to the client, and may only be asserted or waived by the client11 or the client’s personal representative,12) such as a lawyer,13) guardian,14) conservator,15) heir,16) or the personal representative of a deceased client.17)  If the client is a corporation, the privilege may also be asserted by an officer,18 director,19) successor,20) assignee,21) trustee22 or other representative.23  In these states, the privilege cannot be asserted by the accountant on his or her own behalf.24  Some states allow the accountant to assert the privilege, but only on the client’s behalf and with the client’s authority.25 Otherwise, the privilege cannot be asserted by an outsider to the account-client relationship.26

Illinois recognizes a privilege only on the part of the accountant,27 and the client has no say in whether the accountant invokes the privilege.28

4.  Members of the Privileged Relationship

Some states limit the privilege to certified public accountants,29) while other extend it to certified public accountants and public accountants.30 Some states further limit the privilege to accountants licensed in the forum state.31

Where the subject communication concerns a matter in which the accountant has been retained by more than one person, a communication involving one of the clients is privileged vis-a-vis outsiders,32 but not with respect to any of the others in a civil suit between them.33  For example, it has been held that a corporation’s accountant is hired for the benefit of the shareholders, and shareholders may obtain disclosure of communications between the corporation and the accountant.34  Similarly, the privilege does not apply to communications between an accountant and a partner35 or joint venturer36 in an action between members of the partnership or joint venture.

6. Confidentiality

To be privileged, a communication must not have been intended to be disclosed to third persons, except as necessary in furtherance of the renidtion of accounting services.37  See also 12 Waiver, infra, and PRIVILEGE 6.  Confidentiality. It has been held that the privilege does not extend to information disclosed for the purpose of preparing a public report38 or filing such as a tax return39 or a report to be used in court,40) since there is no expectation that the information will be kept confidential.

5.  Proceedings in Which Privilege Inapplicable

5(a).  Criminal Cases

Statutes recognizing an accountant-client privilege have been interpreted by some courts to be inapplicable in criminal proceedings.41  In federal criminal cases, privileges are governed by federal common law,42 therefore state law accountant-client privileges do not apply.43

5(b).  Federal Question and Bankruptcy Cases

In federal court cases involving federal questions, privileges are governed by federal common law,44 therefore state law accountant-client privileges do not apply.45  These privileges also do not apply in bankruptcy proceedings46 or federal administrative proceedings.47

5(c).  Actions Brought By or Against Accountant

The privilege is generally inapplicable in proceedings brought by an accountant against the client for compensation48) or by the client against the  accountant for some breach of duty.49

5(d).  Actions Between Parties Who Claim Through Same Deceased Client

Two state privilege statutes provide that the privilege is inapplicable to suits between parties who are claiming through the same deceased client.50)

7. Communications Not Privileged

7(a).  Crime or Fraud Exception

The privilege does not to extend to communications made in furtherance of a crime or a fraud.51

7(b).  Legal Advice

The privilege only applies where the accountant is providing accounting advice.52  It has been held that no privilege exists for legal advice given by an accountant.53

7(c).  Other

It has been held that communications with an acount hired to analyze a non-client’s financial affairs are not privileged.54

9. Documents and Work Product

It has been held that the privilege extends only to communications between the accountant and the client,55) not to the client’s financial records.56)  A client cannot render otherwise discoverable documents inadmissible simply by transmitting them to his or her accountant.57

In United States v. Arthur Young & Co.,58 the United States Supreme Court held that an accounting firm cannot assert a work product privilege to refuse disclosure of a client’s tax accrual workpapers to the IRS.

10.  Accountants Retained by Client’s Attorney

The attorney-client privilege will in some cases be extended to communications made by or to accountants hired by the client’s attorney.  See ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE–Communications through Agents.

12.  Waiver

The privilege will be deemed waived if the client testifies as to the communication at issue,59 or has previously authorized the accountant to disclose the subject information to others outside the accountant-client relationship.60
A party may be deemed to have waived the privilege if intends to rely on its accountant’s report for its claim or defense,61 or if it has previously disclosed otherwise privileged materials to the party now seeking disclosure.62

Bibliography

Note, Privileged Communications — Accountants and Accounting — A Critical Analysis of Accountant-Client Privilege Statutes, 66 Mich. L. Rev. 1264 (1968).
Francis M. Dougherty, Annot., Privileged Communications Between Accountant and Client, 33 A.L.R.4th 539.
36 A.L.R. Fed. 686
31 A.L.R.3d 557.

  1. First Community Bank and Trust v. Kelley, Hardesty, Smith and Company, Inc., 663 N.E.2d 218, 221 (Ind. App. 1996), [↩]
  2. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-749 (1996); Colo. Rev. Stat. 13-90-107 (1996); Fla. Stat. §§ 90.5055 and 473.316 (1996); Ga. Code § 43-3-32 (1996); Idaho R. Evid. 515 (1996); Ill. Stat. 225 ILCS 450/27 (1996); Ind. Code § 25-2.1-14-1 and 2 (1994); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 1-401 (1996); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37:87 (1997)  (privilege inapplicable where accountant served with subpoena); Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 9-110 (1996); Mich. Stat. Ann. § 18.425(713) (1996); Rev. Stat. Mo. § 326.151 (1996); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.185 et seq. (1995); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 38-6-6 (1996); Pa. Stat. § 9.11a (1996) (excepts from privilege information obtained in connection with examination or audit of client’s books and records; Tenn. C. Ann. § 62-1-116 (1996).
    See also United States v. Bowman, 358 F.2d 421 (3d Cir. 1966) (applying Pa. law, holding that statute excepts from privilege information obtained in connection with examination or audit of client’s books and records); Rubin v. Katz, 347 F. Supp. 322 (E.D. Pa. 1972)(same); Neusteter v. District Court of Denver, 675 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1984); Affiliated of Florida, Inc. v. U-Need Sundries, Inc., 397 So. 2d 764 (Fla. App. D2 1981); General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Bowen Motors, Inc., 167 Ga. App. 463, 306 S.E.2d 675 (1983) (privilege inapplicable where no proof that witness was client at time of the communication); Holley v. Allen Drilling Co., 241 Kan. 707, 740 P.2d 1077 (1987); In re Special Investigation #202, 53 Md. App. 96, 452 A.2d 458 (1982); Ash v. H.G. Reiter Co., 78 N.M. 194, 429 P.2d 653 (1967); Agra Enterprises, Inc v. Brunozzi, 302 Pa. Super. 166, 448 A.2d 579 (1982). [↩]
  3. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 325.440 (1996) (privilege does not affect accountant’s obligation to comply with valid subpoena or summons); La. Rev. Stat. 47:87 (1997) (privilege does not apply where accountant served with subpoena).
    See also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-749 (1996) (privilege does not apply to subpoenaes from state or federal authorities); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 1-401 (1996) (privilege does not apply to subpoenaes from state authorities);  P.R. R. Evid. 25A (1994) (privilege may be set aside by “legal mandate” or “pressing public interest.”); Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 41a-1 (1997) (accountant-client privilege inapplicable in court proceedings). [↩]
  4. Hercules, Inc. v. Martin Marietta Corp., 143 F.R.D. 266 (D. Utah 1992) (no privilege recognized under Utah law).
    First Interstate Credit Alliance, Inc. v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 150 App. Div. 2d 291, 541 N.Y.S.2d 433 (1983); State v. Agnew, 294 N.C. 382, 241 S.E.2d 684 (1978), cert. den. 439 U.S. 830, 58 L.Ed.2d 124, 99 S.Ct. 107; Wagenheim v. Alexander Grant & Co., 19 Ohio App. 3d 7, 19 Ohio B.R. 71, 482 N.E.2d 955 (Franklin Co. 1983); Clayton v. Canida, 223 S.W.2d 264 (Tex. Civ. App. 1949).
    See also Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 41a-1 (1997) (accountant-client privilege inapplicable in court proceedings). [↩]
  5. The revisions to the Federal Rules of Evidence drafted by the Judicial Conference and approved by the Supreme Court in 1972 recognized  a number of specific privileges, but none for accountant-client communications. In any event, Congress rejected all of the proposed privilege rules in favor of a general rule granting federal courts discretion to recognize privileges “in the light of reason and experience.”  FRE 501.  See PRIVILEGES § 2. [↩]
  6. United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805, 817 (1984) (holding that an accounting firm cannot assert a work product privilege to refuse disclosure of a client’s tax accrual workpapers to the IRS); Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322 (1973); U.S. v. Adlman, 68 F.3d 1495, 1499 (2d Cir. 1995); Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp., 671 F.2d 100 (3d Cir. 1982); U.S. v. Mancuso, 378 F.2d 612 (4th Cir. 1967), amd. on other grounds, 387 F.2d 376, cert. denied, 390 U.S. 955 (by implication); United State v. El Paso Co., 682 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1982), reh. den. 688 F.2d 840 and cert. den. 80 L.ed.2d 473; Gariepy v. U.S., 189 F.2d 459 (6th Cir. 1951); Federal Trade Commission v. St. Regis Paper Co., 304 F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1962); Himmelfarb v. U.S., 175 F.2d 924 (9th Cir. 1949); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 658 F.2d 782 (10th Cir. 1981); In re Newton, 718 F.2d 1015 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. den. ___U.S.—, 104 S.Ct. 1678, 80 L.Ed.2d 153; In re Enforce Administrative Subpoenaes of SEC v. Coopers & Lybrand, 98 F.R.D. 414 (S.D. Fla. 1982); United States v. Devon Bank, 529 F. Supp. 40 (N.D. Ill. 1981); In re Fahey, 192 F. Supp. 492 (W.D. Ky. 1961), aff’d 300 F.2d 383; Lewis v. Capital Mortg. Invest, 78 F.R.D. 295 (D.C. Md. 1978); United States v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 474 F. Supp. 322 (D.C. Mass. 1979), appeal dismissed as moot, 623 F.2d 720 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1021 (1980); In re GHR Cos., 41 B.R. 655 (Bankr. D.C. Mass. 1984); United States v. Cote, 326 F. Supp. 444 (D.C. Minn. 1971), aff’d 456 F.2d 142; United States v. Margarita’s Mexican Restaurant, Inc., 138 F.R.D. 566 (W.D. Mo. 1991); In re Oxford Royal Mushroom Products, Inc., 41 B.R. 863 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1984); Rapidforma Del Caribe, Inc. v. United States, 636 F.Supp. 465 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1986); In re Federal Copper of Tennessee, Inc., 19 B.R. 177 (M.D. Tenn. 1982); In Re Mittco, Inc., 44 B.R. 35 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1984). [↩]
  7. State v. O’Brien, 601 P.2d 341 (Ariz. App. 1979) (privilege held inapplicable to criminal cases); First Community Bank and Trust v. Kelley, Hardesty, Smith and Company, Inc., 663 N.E.2d 218, 221 (Ind. App. 1996) (privilege “particularly disfavored”); In re Special Investigation No. 202, 452 A.2d 458, 461 (Md. App. 1982) (privilege held inapplicable to grand jury proceedings). [↩]
  8. Hare v. Family Publications Service, Inc., 334 F. Supp. 953 (D.C. Md. 1971) (applying Maryland choice of law rules, and applying accoutant-client privilege). [↩]
  9. Western Employers Ins. Co. v. Merit Ins. Co., 492 F. Supp. 53 (N.D. Ill. 1979) (applying Illinois account-client privilege law in proceedings to enforce subpoena, even though underlying arbitration governed by New Jersey law. [↩]
  10. __ Restatement 2d (Conflicts) ‘ ___ (19__).
    See also Hare v. Family Publications Service, Inc., 334 F. Supp. 953 (D.C. Md. 1971).  In Hare, the court applied Maryland choice of law rules, which ordinarily would have resulted in the application of New York privilege law.  But because New York did not recognize an accoutant-client privilege and Maryland did, the court applied the Maryland privilege on the grounds that following New York law would violate Maryland public policy).
    Accord Lewis v. Capital Mortg. Invest., 78 F.R.D. 295 (D.C. Md. 1977). [↩]
  11. See statutes cited in § 1, supra.
    See also Landau v. Bailey, 629 N.E.2d 264 (Ind. App. 1994). [↩]
  12. FLA. STAT. § 90.5055(3) (1996); GA. CODE ‘  43-3-32(b) (1996); Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 9-110(b) (1996); Mich. Stat. Ann. § 18.425(713)(1) (1996); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 38-6-6(c) (1996); Pa. Stat. § 9.11a (1996 [↩]
  13. Idaho R. Evid. 515(c) (1996 [↩]
  14. Fla. Stat. § 90.5055 (3)(b) (1996); Idaho R. Evid. 515(c) (1996); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.195(1 [↩]
  15.   Fla. Stat. § 90.5055 (3)(b) (1996); Idaho R. Evid. 515(c) (1996); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.195(1 [↩]
  16. Mich. Stat. Ann. § 18.425(713)(1) (1996); Pa. Stat. § 9.11a (1996 [↩]
  17.  Fla. Stat. § 90.5055 (3)(c) (1996); Idaho R. Evid. 515(c) (1996); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.195(1 [↩]
  18. Weck v. District Court of Second Judicial District, 161 Colo. 384, 422 P.2d 46 (1967) (dictum). [↩]
  19. Weck v. District Court of Second Judicial District, 161 Colo. 384, 422 P.2d 46 (1967) (dictum [↩]
  20.   Fla. Stat. § 90.5055 (3)(d) (1996); Idaho R. Evid. 515(c) (1996); Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 9-110(b) (1996); Mich. Stat. Ann. § 18.425(713)(1) (1996); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.195(1); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 38-6-6(c) (1996); Pa. Stat. § 9.11a (1996 [↩]
  21. Fla. Stat. § 90.5055 (3)(d) (1996 [↩]
  22. Fla. Stat. § 90.5055 (3)(d) (1996); Idaho R. Evid. 515(c) (1996); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.195(1); Weck v. District Court of Second Judicial District, 161 Colo. 384, 422 P.2d 46 (1967) (bankruptcy trustee). [↩]
  23. Fla. Stat. § 5055 (3)(d) (1996); GA. CODE § 43-3-32(b) (1996); Idaho R. Evid. 515(c) (1996); Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 9-110(b) (1996); Mich. Stat. Ann. § 18.425(713)(1) (1996); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.195(1)
    But see Weck v. District Court of Second Judicial District, 161 Colo. 384, 422 P.2d 46 (1967) (shareholder cannot waive privilege on behalf of corporation). [↩]
  24. Earnst & Earnst v. Underwriters Nat. Assur. Co., 381 N.E.2d 897 (Ind. App. 1978); Ash v. H.G. Reiter Co., 429 P.2d 653 (N.M. 1967); First Interstate Credit Alliance, Inc. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 150 App. Div. 2d 291, 541 N.Y.S.2d 433 (1989) (applying Md. law); Federal Ins. Co. v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 816 S.W.2d 328 (Tenn. 1991). [↩]
  25. Fla. Stat. § 473.316(3)(c) (1996) (accountant’s authority to assert priviege is presumed in absence of contrary evidence); Idaho R. Evid. 515(c) (1996) (same); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.195(2) (same). [↩]
  26. Hopkins v. People, 89 Colo. 296, 1 P.2d 937 (1931) (estate administrator who did not employ accountant to review estate records); People v. Zimbelman, 194 Colo. 384, 572 P.2d 830 (1977) (defendant not “client” of court-appointed accountant). [↩]
  27. Ill. Stat. 225 ILCS 450/27 (1996); United States v. Balistrieri, 403 F.2d 472 (7th Cir. 1968), vacated on other grounds, 395 U.S. 710, and later app. 436 F.2d 1212, cert. den. 402 U.S. 953 (applying Illinois law). [↩]
  28. In re October 1985 Grand Jury No. 746, 507 N.E.2d 6 (Ill. App. 1987), vacated on other grounds, 530 N.E.2d 453 (Ill. 1988). [↩]
  29. Colo. Rev. Stat. 13-90-107(f) (1996); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 1-401(b) (1996); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37:87(B); Mich. Stat. Ann. § 18.425(713)(1) (1996); P.R. R. Evid. 25A (1994).People v. Simon, 174 Mich. App. 649, 436 N.W.2d 695 (1989), app. den. 432 Mich. 910 (questioning of defendant’s accountant did not violate privilege where the witness was not shown to be a C.P.A. [↩]
  30. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-749(A) (1996); Fla. Stat. § 90.5055 (1)(a) (1996); Ga. Code ‘  43-3-32(b) (1996); Idaho R. Evid. 515(a)(3) (1996); Ill. Stat. 225 ILCS 450/27 (1996); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37:87 (1997);  Rev. Stat. Mo. § 326.151 (1996); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 38-6-6(c) (1996); Pa. Stat. § 9.11a (1996); Tenn. C. Ann. § 62-1-116 (1996).
    See also Dees v. Scott, 347 So. 2d 475 (Fla. App. 1977) (no privilege attached to communications with corporation’s accountant, who was neither certified public accountant nor public accountant). [↩]
  31. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-749(A) (1996); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 1-401(d) (1996); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 325.440(1) (1996); Pa. Stat. § 9.11a (1996); P.R. R. Evid. 25A (1994); Tenn. C. Ann. § 62-1-116(a) (1996).
    See also Baylor v. Mading-Dugan Drug Co., 57 F.R.D. 509 (N.D. Ill. 1972) (stating in dicta that it is questionable whether Illinois privilege extends to accontants licensed in other states). [↩]
  32. Idaho R. Evid. 515(b)(3) (1996); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.185(3). [↩]
  33. Fla. Stat. § 90.5055 (4)(c) (1996); Idaho R. Evid. 515(d)(5) (1996); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.205(5); P.R. R. Evid. 25A (1994); Transmark, USA v. Department of Ins., 631 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. App. 1994), review denied, 639 So. 2d 983 (Fla.)
    Check Harwood v. Randolph Harwood, Inc., 124 Mich. App. 137, 333 N.W.2d 609 (1983). [↩]
  34. Pattie Lea, Inc. v. District Court of Denver, 161 Colo. 493, 423 P.2d 27 (1967).
    See also Idaho R. Evid. 515(d)(6) (1996); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.205(6).
    Check Neusteter v. District Court of Denver, 675 P.2d 1 (D.C. Colo. 1984). [↩]
  35. Nashvilee City Bank & Trust Co. v. Reliable Tractor, Inc., 90 F.R.D. 709 (M.D. Ga. 1981) (applying Ga. and Fla. law). [↩]
  36. Gearhart v. Etheridge, 232 Ga. 638, 208 S.E.2d 460 (1974). [↩]
  37. Fla. Stat. § 90.5055 (1)(c) (1996); Idaho R. Evid. 515(a)(5) (1996); P.R. R. Evid. 25A (1994). [↩]
  38.   Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.205(4) (public report). [↩]
  39. In re October 1985 Grand Jury No. 746, 124 Ill. 2d 466, 530 N.E.2d 453 (1988) (information for tax returns). [↩]
  40. In re Estate of Berger, 166 Ill. App. 3d 1045, 117 Ill. Dec. 339, 520 N.E.2d 690 (1st Dist. 1987 [↩]
  41. State v. O’Brien, 601 P.2d 341 (Ariz. App. 1979); State v. McKinnon, 317 So. 2d 184 (La. 1975); In re Special Investigation No. 202, 452 A.2d 458, 461-62 (Md. App. 1982) (privilege held inapplicable to grand jury proceedings).
    See also Kan. Stat. Ann. § 1-401 (1996) (privilege does not apply to subpoenaes from state or federal authorities). [↩]
  42. FRE 501. [↩]
  43. Hayes v. United States, 407 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. dismd, 395 U.S. 972; United States v. Balistrieri, 403 F.2d 472 (7th Cir. 1968), vacated on other grounds, 395 U.S. 710, and later app. 436 F.2d 1212, cert. den. 402 U.S. 953; United States v. Jaskiewicz, 278 F. Supp. 525 (D.C. Fla. 1968) (discussing Pennsylvania law). [↩]
  44. FRE 501. [↩]
  45. Baylor v. Mading-Dugan Drug Co., 57 F.R.D. 509 (N.D. Ill. 1972). [↩]
  46. Check In re Valley Forge Plaza Assoc., 109 B.R. 669 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1990). [↩]
  47. Falsone v. United States, 205 F.2d 734 (5th Cir. 1953), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 864 (IRS proceeding). [↩]
  48. Fla. Stat. § 90.5055 (4)(b) (1996); Ga. Code ‘  43-3-32(b)(2) (1996); Idaho R. Evid. 515(d)(3) (1996); Ind. Code ‘  25-2.1-14-2(4) (1994); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.205(3); Pa. Stat. § 9.11a (1996); Gearhart v. Etheridge, 232 Ga. 638, 208 S.E.2d 460 (1974) (dicta [↩]
  49. Fla. Stat. § 90.5055 (4)(b) (1996); Ga. Code ‘  43-3-32(b)(2) (1996); Idaho R. Evid. 515(d)(3) (1996); Ind. Code ‘  25-2.1-14-2(4) (1994); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 1-401(b) (1996); Mich. Stat. Ann. § 18.425(713)(2) (1996); Rev. Stat. Mo. § 326.151 (1996); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.205(3); Pa. Stat. § 9.11a (1996); P.R. R. Evid. 25A (1994); Gearhart v. Etheridge, 232 Ga. 638, 208 S.E.2d 460 (1974) (dicta); State ex rel. Schott v. Foley, 741 S.W.2d 111 (Mo. App. 1987). [↩]
  50. Idaho R. Evid. 515(d)(2) (1996); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.205(2) (1995).
    See also Idaho R. Evid. 515(d)(4) (1996) (privilege inapplicable where communication relates to document as to which accountant is attesting witness [↩]
  51. Fla. Stat. § 90.5055 (4)(a) (1996); Idaho R. Evid. 515(1) (1996); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.205(1) (1995); P.R. R. Evid. 25A (1994); In re Hall County Grand Jury Proceedings, 333 S.E.2d 389 (Ga. App. 1985), cert. vac’d, 338 S.E.2d 864 (crime); Dixon v. Bennett, 531 A.2d 1318 (Md. App. 1987), cert. denied, 536 A.2d 664 (fraud). [↩]
  52. Fla. Stat. § 90.5055 (2) (1996). [↩]
  53. CNR Investments Inc. v. Jefferson Trust & Savings Bank, 115 Ill. App. 3d 1071, 451 N.E.2d 580 (3d Dist. 1983) [↩]
  54. Brown v. Superior Court, 670 P.2d 725, 736 (Ariz. 1983). [↩]
  55. McNair v. District Court, 885 P.2d 576 (Nev. 1994 [↩]
  56. In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp., 176 B.R. 223 (M.D. Fla. 1994) (holding that only acountant’s notations on records inadmissible [↩]
  57. Paper Corp. of America v. Schneider, 563 So, 2d 1134 (Fla. App. 1990). [↩]
  58. 465 U.S. 805 (1984). [↩]
  59. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 38-6-6(D) (1996). [↩]
  60. E.g., Mercantile Credit Corp. v. Engstrom’s of Alexandria, Inc., 223 So. 2d 428, 431 (1969) (waiver found where defendant in the past had allowed plaintiff to examine accountant’s records). [↩]
  61. Savino v. Luciano, 92 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1957); Nashville City Bank & Trust Co. v. Reliable Tractor, Inc., 90 F.R.D. 709 (M.D. Ga. 1981). [↩]
  62. Mercantile Credit Corp. v. Engstrom’s of Alexandria, Inc., 223 So. 2d 428 (La. 1969). [↩]