Fact · Voice privacy and security
In United States v. Kovel, the Second Circuit said an accountant's presence does not destroy the privilege where it is necessary, or at least highly useful, to the consultation between client and lawyer.
Checked against its source on October 17, 2026
In the source's own words
“the presence of the accountant is necessary, or at least highly useful, for the effective consultation between the client and the lawyer which the privilege is designed to permit”
United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1961), United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Federal Reporter, Second Series, 1961, Opinion, privilege discussion.
Open the original- What it measures
- The Kovel court compared the accountant to an interpreter who helps a lawyer understand a foreign-language client.
- What it does not show
- The privilege extends only to help that is needed for legal advice, not to accounting work. The case concerns a person, not a software product.