Photo of Starling Marshall

When clients face complex commercial and tax disputes, they rely on S. Starling Marshall as their advocate and counselor. Starling is a trial lawyer with over 15 years of experience who has successfully represented clients before federal and state courts, arbitration panels, and administrative tribunals. Drawing on her years of government service and private practice, she guides clients toward business-minded solutions throughout all phases of an investigation or litigation.

Starling is a partner in the Litigation and Tax groups in the firm’s New York office. In addition to representing clients in all stages of litigation, she guides clients through complex IRS audits and administrative appeals, provides tax-related advice, conducts internal investigations, and represents individuals and corporate entities in criminal tax matters.

On January 9, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in In re Grand Jury. In this case, the Court is asked to decide the appropriate test for determining whether documents that include legal advice, but also discuss other non-privileged issues, are protected by the attorney-client privilege. The question before the Court is whether a “dual purpose” communication is privileged only if its “primary purpose” was obtaining legal advice, or if the privilege extends to documents that have only a “significant purpose” of obtaining legal advice. While the case arose in a criminal context and relates to tax advice, the Court’s decision could have broad implications across the legal profession. The case has drawn an enormous amount of attention, as evidenced by the thirteen amici briefs filed in the case.

The case arose when a law firm specializing in international tax issues was ordered to turn over documents containing communications that discussed both the preparation of the client’s tax returns and legal advice. Communications solely involving preparation of a tax return are generally not privileged. The law firm claimed that because the communications had a “dual purpose” that included legal advice, they were protected by the attorney-client privilege and refused to produce them. Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs Whether “Dual Purpose” Communications Are Privileged in In re Grand Jury