Does a judge have jurisdiction to compel a defendant's attorney to testify before a federal grand jury?

Intervenor-Appellant Jack Roe appeals from the district court's order compelling his attorney to testify before a federal grand jury. He argues that the district court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing to determine the applicability of the crime-fraud exception. He also argues that the district court erred in not requiring the government to submit a list of questions that it intended to ask the attorney. We have jurisdiction pursuant to the doctrine of Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918). We affirm the judgment of the district court.