ABRAMS, J.

Richard Roe (Roe) commenced an action pursuant to G.L.c. 211, § 3 (1988 ed.), seeking relief from an order of a Superior Court judge denying his motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum directed to John Doe, II (Doe). After hearing, a single justice of this court denied relief. Roe appeals. He argues that (1) this is a proper case for relief pursuant to G.L.c. 211, § 3, and (2) S.J.C. Rule 3:08, PF 15, as amended, 396 Mass. 1217 (1986), applies to agents of an attorney and therefore the subpoena should have been quashed because it was served in violation of that rule.

We summarize the facts. Roe believes that he was the target of a grand jury's investigation of a fire involving property owned by Roe. Roe's attorney retained Doe, an employee of a licensed investigator, see G.L.c. 147, §§ 23 and 25 (1988 ed.), to investigate the fire incident. Without prior judicial approval, the prosecutor served a subpoena duces tecum on Doe to appear before the grand jury and to produce certain documents. Roe moved to quash the subpoena. After hearing a Superior Court judge denied the motion. The judge did not make any written findings of fact or rulings of law. Roe filed with the county court a "Petition for Relief Pursuant to G.L.c. 211, § 3," which was denied after hearing. Roe appealed to the full court from the single justice's denial of relief.

Roe failed to submit a transcript of the motion hearing to the single justice or to the full court. Roe also "intentionally omitted" several "exhibits" from his petition, offering to "make them available to the court for an in camera inspection at the court's convenience." Commonwealth v. Montanez, 388 Mass. 603, 604 (1983) ("It is the appellant's burden . . . to bring us a satisfactory transcript"). See Mass. R.A.P. 18 (a), as appearing in 378 Mass. 940 (1979). Thus, there was no error in the single justice's denial of relief. Nevertheless, because of the importance of PF 15 to the administration of criminal justice and because this is our first occasion to comment on the interpretation of PF 15, we consider Roe's claims. See Wellesley College v. Attorney Gen., 313 Mass. 722, 731 (1943).

Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:08, PF 15, provides that "[i]t is unprofessional conduct for a prosecutor to subpoena an attorney to a grand jury without prior judicial approval in circumstances where the prosecutor seeks to compel the attorney/witness to provide evidence concerning a person who is represented by the attorney/witness." Ethical concerns raised by an attorney subpoena include "the `chilling' of the attorney-client relationship, the implication of Sixth Amendment concerns, the creation of conflicting interests between an attorney and his [or] her client, and the possibility for adversarial abuse." United States v. Klubock, 832 F.2d 649, 655-656 (1st Cir.), aff'd by an equally divided court, 832 F.2d 664 (1st Cir. 1987) (en banc) (incorporating amended panel opinion). See Stern Hoffman, Privileged Informers: The Attorney Subpoena Problem and A Proposal For Reform, 136 U. Pa. L.Rev. 1783, 1787-1789 (1988); Weiner, Federal Grand Jury Subpoenas to Attorneys: A Proposal For Reform, 23 Am. Crim. L.Rev. 95, 111 (1985). "The implications of this disturbing practice are great, to the point of threatening the keystone of the attorney-client relationship, most notably the trust placed by clients in their attorneys." In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Attorney (Under Seal), 679 F. Supp. 1403, 1404 (N.D.W. Va. 1988). We conclude that PF 15 must be interpreted to include agents of an attorney, including investigators such as Doe.

The concerns that gave rise to the enactment of PF 15, most notably the "chilling" effect on the attorney-client relationship, also are implicated if an attorney's agent is subpoenaed. Subpoenaing an agent carries the risk that confidential information imparted by the attorney to the agent in order to conduct an effective investigation may be disclosed through the agent, in contravention of the concerns that gave rise to PF 15. Turning members of the defense team into government witnesses may undermine a client's trust in, and his willingness to communicate with, his attorney. That a prosecutor may seek to compel evidence concerning a client from an agent rather than from the attorney himself does not diminish the danger of such a "chilling wedge."

Further, the power to profit from a defense attorney's investigative efforts by subpoenaing that attorney's investigator carries with it the power to control and limit the preparation of the client's case. A cautious attorney may be discouraged from hiring an investigator to investigate thoroughly his client's case for fear of producing evidence that will be used against the client. Similarly, an attorney who does hire an investigator may find that he had been instrumental in collecting evidence that ensures his client's indictment.

If a judge, after hearing, determines that there has been a violation of PF 15, the judge has a full panoply of remedies available. The judge also may, among other remedies, consider ordering the presentation of evidence to a different grand jury without the use of the subpoenaed evidence or any evidence derived from the subpoena, suppression of the evidence without a different grand jury or, in an especially egregious case, the dismissal of indictments. The judge may conclude that the violation did not assist the prosecutor and therefore no remedy is required. In sum, the judge may use any remedy which effectuates the purposes of PF 15.

The order of the single justice is affirmed. Further proceedings consistent with this opinion are to be had in the Superior Court.

So ordered.