This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D with making illegal nominee loans. Two of these nominee loans were made to Mr. Treat. P called Mr. Treat as a witness against D. The gist of the testimony was that Treat had asked D about the legality of making a nominee loan. Treat testified that D told him that he had verified the legality of such a loan with an attorney, Tom Nally. D did not object, and did not cross-examine the witness. The court ruled that D waived his attorney-client privilege 'in regard to the loans made by Bernard to Treat' and permitted the government to call Nally as a witness. Nally was called and testified that D was his client. Nally denied even discussing the question of the legality of nominee loans with D. D was convicted and appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.