remand, the court’s inquiry into the subpoenas’ reasonableness should take into account the trustee’s need for the information and the availability of the information from other sources; the inquiry also should consider the danger inherent in subpoenaing criminal counsel regarding his client’s affairs. 2. Modification of Subpoena Compliance Procedure Required We next consider whether the bankruptcy court’s procedure provides adequate protection of the interests implicated by the challenged subpoenas — e.g., the various privileges raised by appellants. The bankruptcy court accurately concluded that a determination whether material is privileged or otherwise protected requires a particularized review of the material. See United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Such a determination also requires the
holding that court must review  assertions of the privilege on a questionbyquestion basis recognizing privilege holding that to establish an attorneyclient privilege a corporate officer must make it clear that he is consulting the inhouse counsel on a personal basis and the counsel must accept the representation holding that production of documents without a claim of privilege waives the right to later claim that privilege holding that for purposes of certiorari review court of appeals must identify the basis for refusing to treat an issue