There Is No Bark to the Barko Case

by Michael Volkov

barkI always enjoy listening to the legal “doomsayers” who love to propound hysterical claims in an effort to gain attention.   It reminds me of little children screaming for attention.  Unfortunately, in the case of lawyers, they tend to wear suits, earn lucrative salaries and are respected in their professional community.

The latest fad in this space is a federal judge’s ruling in the Barko v. KBR case, which is on appeal right now.  Oral arguments were heard on May 7 and a decision is expected in the next few months.

The case involves application of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine to documents created as part of an internal compliance investigation.  This is not a new or novel issue.  Rather, as the Supreme Court stated in Upjohn Co. v. United States, the outcome in any particular circumstance must be determined on a “case-by-case basis” and depends on the particular circumstances of the case.

Harry Barko, a qui tam whistleblower, reported fraud and contracting abuses he believed were committed by KBR in spending the monies it obtained from the U.S. government to pay costs associated with the War in Iraq.

Mr. Barko used the internal reporting procedures established in KBR’s Code of Business Conduct (“CBOC”) to report his allegations regarding the KBR-Daoud fraud.  KBR investigated Mr. Barko’s allegations.  The company then wrote up internal reports concerning the investigators findings. Nothing was reported to the federal government.

Fast forward approximately ten years later.  Mr. Barko, frustrated by his belief that KBR hid evidence of fraud, filed a False Claims Act/qui tam legal action in an attempt to hold the company accountable.  As part of his lawsuit he asked that KBR produce in discovery the CBOC reports.  KBR refused.  They claimed that because an attorney managed the CBOC program the reports were privileged.  Barko filed a motion to compel.bark3

On March 6, 2014, after conducting his in camera review, the judge ordered KBR to produce all of its CBOC reports related to Mr. Barko’s allegations.

The district judge explained that the “investigations were undertaken pursuant to regulatory law and corporate policy rather than for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.”  As a result, the trial judge determined that the investigation was of a “business nature” rather than a “legal nature.”

Significantly, KBR conducted the investigation without any attention to the attorney-client privilege.  For example, KBR investigators failed to advise employees of basic rights as required under Upjohn.  The employees who were interviewed were never told: (1) the purpose of the investigation; (2) that the investigation was being conducted under the attorney-client privilege; (3) that KBR retained the privilege and would decide whether or not to waive the privilege; or (4) that they were entitled to representation during the interview.

Faced with the prospect of having to turn over the highly incriminating CBOC reports, KBR filed an “emergency” motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, seeking interlocutory review of the lower court’s order.  KBR claimed that the court’s order would set precedent that internal investigations conducted pursuant to mandatory government regulations, could not be kept confidential under the attorney-client privilege.

Shortly thereafter business associations aligned with KBR, including the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufactures and the Association of Corporate Counsels, submitted an amicus curie “friend of the court” brief to the appeals court in support of KBR.

bark2The old legal axiom applies to the Barko case – bad facts make bad law.  And the facts for KBR are very bad.  KBR failed to take the steps, known to any first year law student, to preserve the attorney-client privilege.

Unfortunately for KBR, the COBC investigation was conducted without any adherence to the basic procedural requirements dictated by the Supreme Court under Upjohn and long-standing precedent.

To deflect attention from KBR’s own procedural missteps and mishandling of the COBC internal investigation, KBR is arguing, with the support of powerful business interests, that upholding the trial judge’s decision would undermine the ability of companies to conduct internal investigations under the protection of the attorney-client privilege.

KBR’s argument proves too much and ignores the fact that its own procedural missteps have placed it in a situation where they have nothing left to argue but dramatic distractions from basic legal principles.

Moreover, KBR’s argument would set a dangerous precedent by suggesting that companies will need to conduct more of their compliance operations under the umbrella of privilege.  Such a result would run contrary to the important need of compliance programs to be transparent within a company’s culture.  This would be a backward step in the development of compliance programs and would have the unfortunate result of increasing privilege claims over routine compliance operations.

Hopefully, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will apply common sense to the case and remand it back to the trial judge to conduct a more rigorous analysis of a privilege claim, recognizing the basic principles applied in numerous situations to resolve claims of privilege.


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.

© Michael Volkov, The Volkov Law Group | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Michael Volkov

The Volkov Law Group 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):

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.


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 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:

- 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.