alone” if it created an attorney-client privilege for information that is inculpatory without revealing any confidential communication. Other circuits have either rejected the “last link” doctrine or have interpreted Jones (and Baird v. Koerner [279 F.2d 623 (9th Cir.1960) ]) to protect client identity and fee disclosure if disclosure would reveal confidential communications. Id. at 1125 n. 11 (citing Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit cases); see Anderson, 906 F.2d at 1491-92 (concluding that the only exception to the inapplicability of the attorney-client privilege to fee arrangements is the rare circumstance in which compliance with the subpoena will disclose confidential communications); see also In re Grand Jury Subpoenas (Hirsch), 803 F.2d 493, 496-98 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Although some situations may exist where fee
holding that a party waives the attorneyclient privilege when it voluntarily consents to the disclosure of any significant part of the communication in issue holding that the attorneyclient privilege protects a clients identity only in limited circumstances where disclosure would convey the substance of a confidential professional communication holding attorneyclient privilege protects disclosure of communications but does not protect client from disclosure of underlying facts holding that the inadvertent disclosure of a privileged document does not waive the attorneyclient privilege if attorney took all reasonable steps to avoid disclosure and asserted the privilege as soon as the disclosure became known holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege