constrained as an independent, zealous, and loyal representative of the organization. See A.B.A. Model R. Prof’l Conduct 1.3 cmt. 1 (2013); A.B.A. Model R. Prof’l Conduct 1.13(b) (2013); cf. Kay, 499 U.S. at 436 n. 7, 111 S.Ct. 1435; Baker, 473 F.3d at 325. Even a lawyer for an organization he founded and runs must fulfill his professional lawyering responsibilities to that organization. He may not merely serve his own preferences, moods, or tastes. He is legally and ethically required to be loyal to client interests, as distinct from his own. See, e.g., In re Gonzalez, 773 A.2d 1026, 1031 (D.C.2001) (“[T]he attorney owes a fiduciary duty to his client and must serve the client’s interests with the utmost loyalty and devotion.”). An attorney who 593 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. Mordkofsky, 901 F.2d 158, 164
holding that a grand jury subpoena seeking a voice exemplar did not implicate fourth amendment rights but suggesting that even if it had at most the government would have been required to demonstrate that the grand jury subpoena was reasonable holding that a oneperson corporation cannot avail itself of the fifth amendment privilege to resist grand jury subpoena of corporate records holding that a denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena is not final and therefore not appealable holding that voluntary testimony before a grand jury did not waive the privilege at trial because it is settled that a waiver of the fifth amendment privilege is limited to the particular proceeding in which the waiver occurs holding that the statement ill take the fifth was an assertion of the fifth amendment privilege