Question

For five years, Ned Flanders, an accountant licensed by the state of California, provided accounting services to Montgomery Burns and several corporations in which Burns was an officer and shareholder (collectively called Burns). During this period, Burns provided Flanders with confidential information with the expectation that this information would not be disclosed to third parties. California statutes provide for an accountant–client privilege. When the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), a federal agency, began investigating Burns, Flanders, voluntarily and without being subject to a subpoena, released some of this confidential information about Burns to the IRS. Burns sued Flanders, seeking an injunction to prevent further disclosure, requesting return of all information in Flanders' possession, and seeking monetary damages. Who wins? Explain.

Answer 1

In this scenario Flanders provided information to the authorisedbody which is directly under government and has every right to get information from any institution. Hence Burns will not have any strong point to win the case as the agency is involved .It is a part of investigation and Flanders have to cooperate with them. But Flanders did it voluntarily withoutbeing asked or summoned . This might prove against him and Burns will win the case as this is done without being asked and Flanders will have to pay the compensation.