highly useful, for the effective consultation between the client and the lawyer which the privilege is designed to permit.” Id. Similarly, the court stated that, where a client communicates to the accountant at the direction of the lawyer, the attorney-client privilege applies. Id. (stating that the attorney- client privilege attaches “where the client in the first instance consults a lawyer who retains an accountant as a listening post, or consults the lawyer with his own accountant present” but not “where the client communicates first to his own accountant ( ... even though he later consults Ms lawyer on the same matter)”). 17 . This approach dovetails with the case law addressing this topic. See Lawrence E. Jaffe Pension Plan v. Household Int'l, 244 F.R.D. 412, 420 (N.D.I11.2006) (<HOLDING>); see U.S. v. Ackert, 169 F.3d 136, 139 (2d
recognizing that the duty has been applied to accountants holding that plaintiff who provided similar services which were arguably attendant care services under state law fell within the exemption holding that accountants worksheets did not contain privileged communications holding that the attorneyclient privilege applied to communications with accountants where defendants  demonstrated the necessity of the accountants services by showing that the accountants provided services that were beyond  counsels resources and abilities but were uniquely within the accountants qualifications holding that disclosure to outside accountants did not waive the work product privilege since the accountants are not considered a conduit to a potential adversary