letter.” Plaintiffs intimation to the contrary, that Sharp was seeking advice from Tripodi “merely as a representative of Kean University” and not in his legal capacity, has no support in the record. The fact that Tripodi had no involvement in fundraising other than reviewing such solicitations to provide legal advice, and actually rendered such a service in this very instance, belies the naked suggestion that the e-mail was sent for some other, non-legal purpose. Clearly Sharp sent the e-mail to Tripodi because its contents could bind the University and the communication would not have been made but for Sharp’s need for legal advice or services. Equally clear is that as head women’s basketball coach, Sharp was acting within the scope of her employment when soliciti 44 (W.D.Okla.1982) (<HOLDING>). The closer question is whether the University
holding that a notice of tax deficiency sent to a taxpayer by the irs need not be signed in order to be valid holding that the irs has a law enforcement purpose in the context of a criminal tax investigation holding that attorneyclient privilege was not waived when a letter sent by an irs regional counsel to the doj requesting legal services was copied to other irs personnel involved in the investigation holding that disclosure to department of defense audit committee without a confidentiality agreement waived privilege in irs investigation holding that a decedents tax settlement with the irs did not establish the value of his estates claim against the irs as a matter of law