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

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.

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