Because the attorney-client privilege deprives courts and juries of potentially important evidence, it is narrowly construed. Among other things, the only client agents/consultants inside the privilege are those necessary for the clients to communicate with their lawyers — usually just translators or interpreters.
In Dunn v. Patriarch Partners, LLC, Adv. Proc. No. 20-50534, 2025 Bankr. LEXIS 1963 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 14, 2025), the court described the famous Second Circuit decision that extended that very narrow principle to lawyer agents/consultants. In United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1961), the court concluded that accountants assisting lawyers in that case’s specific circumstances were inside privilege protection. The Second Circuit (presumably with a straight judicial face) explained that “[a]ccounting concepts are a foreign language to some lawyers” — so accountants assisting lawyers in that case were essentially acting as translators or interpreters. Id. at *7 (citation omitted).
The Kovel doctrine survives, but most courts have abandoned that ridiculous analogy — and now simply explain that lawyer agents/consultants are inside privilege protection if they are “nearly indispensable” for the lawyers’ provision of legal advice (or words to that effect).
