"Preserving Attorney-Client Privilege, Work-Product Protection During Internal Investigations"

by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Contact

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

When companies conduct investigations that remain strictly internal, maintaining confidentiality is straightforward. But many investigations are conducted in cooperation with U.S. government regulators, who expect companies to share information learned during those investigations. In such situations, maintaining the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product protection — especially against possible third-party litigants pursuing individual claims — can be challenging.

The likelihood of maintaining the privilege and work-product protection over investigation materials increases if companies take certain precautions. Ultimately, however, cooperating companies must carefully balance the benefits of sharing certain types of information with the government against the risks — including the risk that privileged communications and attorney work product could fall into the hands of plaintiffs suing the company.

As a general rule, parties waive attorney-client privilege when disclosing a privileged communication to a third party and waive work-product protection when sharing protected materials with an adversary. Such waivers may provide third-party litigants with an avenue to access otherwise protected files. Certain courts have held that these principles also apply to disclosures made when cooperating in government investigations.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s discovery order in the 2016 Wadler v. Bio-Rad Labs case illustrates this risk. The plaintiff, Bio-Rad’s former general counsel, sued to challenge his dismissal, claiming he had been terminated in retaliation for raising issues under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He argued that the company had waived any privilege or work-product protection over its investigation files by, inter alia, disclosing them to the government as part of its cooperation during an internal investigation. The district court agreed, ruling that the company’s disclosures to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) amounted to a waiver.

Bio-Rad reflects a majority — but not universal — view that privileged communications cannot be shared selectively without waiving the privilege generally. The divide over the issue, known as the selective waiver doctrine, creates legal uncertainty and risk for cooperating companies that share privileged communications or attorney work product with the government. In 1978, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was the first to apply the doctrine, in Diversified Industries, Inc. v. Meredith. Reasoning that the government occupies a different role than private litigants, that court held that disclosing privileged materials to the government during an internal investigation does not waive the privilege as to other parties. Since then, however, six other courts of appeals have rejected the doctrine and ruled that disclosing privileged communications to the government waives the privilege as to all parties. One court of appeals adopted a fact-specific approach, reasoning that courts should consider confidentiality agreements and any common interest before determining the scope of waiver. Three courts of appeals considering the issue have ruled based on the particular facts at hand rather than categorically accepting or rejecting the doctrine. Still others have not addressed selective waiver directly or have issued what appear to be conflicting statements about it.

Regardless of how any particular cooperating company balances government disclosure against potential waiver, taking certain steps may help minimize risks of waiving privilege and work-product protection.

1. Enter Into a Confidentiality Agreement. The first thing cooperating companies can do to help protect information they provide to the government — whether privileged or not — is to enter into confidentiality agreements with the respective government agencies. Such agreements often (1) limit the government’s discretion to disclose materials produced by the company; (2) include nonwaiver provisions in which the government agrees that the production of any privileged communication or attorney work product does not result in a waiver; (3) provide that the government will not assert a broader subject-matter waiver based on such disclosures; and (4) include clawback provisions to address any inadvertent disclosures.

Courts are split over whether confidentiality agreements with the government are effective in preserving privilege or work product vis-a-vis third parties: Some enforce them, while others do not. But even if a court were to hold that a confidentiality agreement did not negate a waiver, these agreements remain important for other reasons, including to protect against and remedy inadvertent waivers. (Many confidentiality agreements include inadvertent waiver and clawback provisions.)

2. Where Possible, Share Facts Without Disclosing Protected Communications or Materials. As explained in the sidebar, the government generally asserts that it wants cooperating companies to disclose facts and does not require them to waive privilege or work-product protection. Cooperating companies can utilize the government’s distinction between facts, on one side, and privileged communications and attorney work product, on the other, to their possible benefit. Sharing facts without revealing privileged communications or attorney work product should present the least risk to a company’s legal protections. As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Upjohn Co. v. United States, facts, standing alone, generally are not privileged; moreover, they are not protected work product, so disclosing them should not threaten those protections. As noted in the sidebar, however, the government’s expectations for cooperating companies may not fully account for, or protect, fact work product.

3. Define the Scope of Any Intended Waiver. Cooperating companies sometimes decide to share privileged material or attorney work product with the government. Before doing so, they should (1) make certain that producing the material in question advances an important interest that cannot be attained by sharing only the facts that the government expressly says it wants; and (2) ensure that the benefit of providing such material outweighs both the risk that the disclosure will be deemed a waiver and the consequences of more widespread disclosure, if a waiver is found.

If protected materials must be shared with the government — for instance, because the company asserts an advice-of-counsel defense — the company should carefully consider how the waiver can be defined and contained along legally defensible lines in order to avoid a broader waiver. For instance, in cases involving an advice-of-counsel defense, the DOJ and SEC reserve the right to seek underlying attorney-client communications and related work product to evaluate the merits of the defense. In light of the attendant waiver such a defense likely will entail, companies should first consider whether the defense is worth asserting and whether it is likely to be effective. Moreover, if a company decides to waive privilege or work-product protection (either because of an advice-of-counsel defense or for some other reason), setting forth the precise scope of the intended waiver — e.g., the subject matter and date range of the privilege or work product to be waived — in a statement to or an agreement with the government can help avoid or at least limit a potential future dispute with the government over the extent (and intent) of the waiver. It also may help establish a clear, defensible limit to the waiver if it is later challenged.

4. If Possible, If Work Product Is Shared, Limit It to Fact Work Product and Assert a Common Interest With the Government. To the extent companies share attorney work product with the government, it is generally safer to share fact — as opposed to opinion — work product. Opinion work product is subject to greater protection under the law.

It also can be helpful to articulate a common interest between the company and the government that may help preserve the work-product protection with regard to other parties. Again, however, the case law is mixed. In certain circumstances, attorney work product may be shared with other parties without waiving the protection if doing so advances a common goal. Certain courts, for instance, have recognized a common interest between investigating companies and the government in ensuring that sound financial and accounting practices are utilized, and in uncovering improper management of a fund. Other possible common interests include holding individual wrongdoers/executives accountable and identifying, remediating, punishing and deterring cyberattacks.

Common interest arguments may be less likely to succeed, however, if the company itself is the target of the government’s investigation. In such a case, it is more difficult to argue that the company and the agency share a common interest and are not adversaries. Even if the company is not a target, courts sometimes find that the company could become one and thus deem the work-product protection waived.

Taking the steps outlined above may help a company reduce the risk of a waiver but will not necessarily eliminate it. Accordingly, companies should calibrate their cooperation efforts with the government to comply with enforcement requirements while taking any available steps to avoid, or at least limit the scope of, any waiver.

Download PDF

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Contact
more
less

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.