rather than the lawyer's, no privilege exists.” In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 220 F.3d at 571 (quoting U.S. v. Brown, 478 F.2d at 1040 (quoting U.S. v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918, 922 (2d Cir. 1961))). In Kovel, the court noted that an accountant "relating a complicated tax story to the lawyer, ought not destroy the privilege.” Kovel, 296 F.2d at 922. In such a case, "the accountant is necessary, or at l 999) (endorsing Kovel’s holding and distinguishing it from the facts of the case); Cavallaro v. U.S., 284 F.3d 236, 247-48 (1st Cir.2002) (stating that the attorney-client privilege can protect communications with the accountant where the accountant is necessary or useful, and the communication is for purposes of legal advice); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 658 F.2d 782, 784 (10th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); U.S. v. Cote, 456 F.2d 142, 144 (8th
holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense holding that accountants worksheets did not contain privileged communications 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 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 communications to the police are conditionally privileged