that the subpoena is served on counsel, until the issue of its validity is resolved, the chent resides in a state of suspended animation, not knowing whether his attorney will testify against him and perhaps be required to withdraw his representation. The uncertainty is heightened by the fact that the common law of attorney-client privilege is still evolving to address the concerns implicated by new federal laws relating to chent identity and fee arrangements. Compare United States v. Gertner, 873 F.Supp. 729 (D.Mass.1995) (in case of first impression in this circuit, holding that identification of attorney’s chent, as required by 26 U.S.C. § 60501, is protected from disclosure by attorney-chent privilege) with United States v. Goldberger & Dubin, P.C., 935 F.2d 501, 505 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In addition, service of a subpoena opens a
holding communications between corporate counsel and corporations employees made for the purpose of rendering legal advice protected by attorneyclient privilege holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege holding that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel waives attorneyclient privilege holding that failure to timely assert attorneyclient privilege constitutes waiver holding that governmental entities may assert attorneyclient privilege to prevent disclosure of information otherwise required by statute