The government’s use of appellant’s attorney’s investigator as an informant did not justify dismissal of the indictment, and the trial court did not err in refusing to do so. Dismissal is disfavored where suppression of the tainted evidence is sufficient to cure the prejudice, and here, the district court did partially grant appellants’ motion to suppress based on careful and extensive factual findings which were not clearly erroneous. The court specifically found that in some instances the attorney-client relationship was breached, but that the government did not, through use of the investigator, encourage new criminal activity, nor was its conduct outrageous in making contingent payments to the investigator-informant for information. Finally, the government committed no misconduct before the grand jury. A grand jury can consider privileged testimony. If any testimony was perjured or inflammatory, it was harmless because appellants’ involvement was overwhelmingly proved. Prosecutors have no duty to introduce exculpatory evidence before a grand jury. (Note: Federal sentencing issues were not summarized. Judge Reinhardt dissented on sentencing issues.)