Attorney-Client Privilege at Risk in Investigations and Auditsmedia.straffordpub.com/products/attorney-client-privilege-at-risk... · Attorney-Client Privilege at Risk in Investigations

The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's

speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you

have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A

Attorney-Client Privilege at Risk

in Investigations and Audits Preserving Confidential Information, Safeguarding

Work Product, Avoiding Inadvertent Disclosure

Today’s faculty features:

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2016

Stuart M. Altman, Director of Corporate Legal Investigations, Intel, Santa Clara, Calif.

David M. Greenwald, Partner, Jenner & Block, Chicago

Tips for Optimal Quality

Sound Quality

If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality

of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet

connection.

If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial

1-866-961-8499 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please

send us a chat or e-mail [email protected] immediately so we can

address the problem.

If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance.

Viewing Quality

To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen,

press the F11 key again.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Continuing Education Credits

In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your

participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance

Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar.

A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you email

that you will receive immediately following the program.

For additional information about continuing education, call us at 1-800-926-7926

ext. 35.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Program Materials

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please

complete the following steps:

• Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-

hand column on your screen.

• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a

PDF of the slides for today's program.

• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.

• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

MAXIMIZING PROTECTIONS OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT

PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE IN

INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS AND AUDITS

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2016

STRAFFORD PUBLICATIONS

Stuart M. Altman David M. Greenwald

Director, Corporate Partner

Legal Investigations Jenner & Block LLP

Intel Corporation Chicago, Illinois [email protected] [email protected]

6

TOPICS

• Attorney-Client Privilege

– Focus on corporate context

• Work Product Doctrine

• Waiver

– Generally

– Disclosures to Government

– Disclosures to Auditors

7

SCENARIO

• Anonymous Call Received By Company Helpline

• Helpline Sends Report of Call to Chief Compliance Officer

• CCO Notifies General Counsel

• General Allegations:

– European-Based Employee of U.S. Publicly Traded Company Has Been Paying

Off Government Officials in Middle East to Obtain Contracts.

– Employee’s Manager in U.S. Is Aware of Payments.

– Company Has Been Booking Costs of Payoffs as “Commissions.”

8

ISSUES TO CONSIDER WHEN COMPANY RECEIVES COMPLAINT

• Should there be an investigation?

• If so, should the company handle it internally or with outside counsel?

• Who should be notified within the company?

• Who should authorize the investigation?

• Outside counsel: Engagement Letter

– Who engages counsel?

– What is the stated purpose of engagement?

• Data Lock Down

– Where is the data likely to reside?

– Are there custodians whose data should be captured immediately (e.g., through forensic imaging of laptops, pdas, voicemail, email, etc.)?

– If data resides outside of U.S.: What limits apply regarding: (a) processing data; (b) transferring data; (c) limiting use for which data will be used?

– Litigation Hold Notice? To whom?

– Has document preservation duty been triggered?

9

ISSUES TO CONSIDER WHEN COMPANY RECEIVES COMPLAINT

• Determine Initial Scope of Investigation.

• Engage Third Parties?

– Forensics: Gathering and preserving data?

– Analytics: Is there need for accounting or other technical analysis?

– Public Relations?

– Crisis Management?

– Data Review Vendors?

10

GOALS

Establish Team and Process to:

• Preserve and review relevant data.

• Determine if there has been any wrongdoing.

• Conduct the investigation in manner that maximizes Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection.

– Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine should be considered separately.

• Preserve Company’s ability to cooperate with government authorities.

• Determine corrective action, including whether or not to voluntarily disclose.

• Corrective action may include optimizing internal standards and procedures.

– Compliance Program

– Training

• Action may include employee discipline up to and including termination.

11

WHAT LAW APPLIES IN U.S. FEDERAL COURT

• Attorney-Client Privilege – Choice of Law Governed by FRE 501

– State law in diversity cases (choice of law issues may be complex)

– Federal law in federal question cases, including pending state claims

– Note: FRE 502 governs both federal and state court proceedings.

• Work Product Doctrine – Governed by FRCP 26(b)(3) and Federal Common

Law

– Rule 26 analogues govern in State Court

• “Touch Base” Approach and Comity Considerations for communications

occurring outside the U.S.

12

APPLYING PRIVILEGE IN U.S. COURTS TO

NON-U.S. COMMUNICATIONS

“Touch Base” Approach

• First, determine whether communication involves U.S. or foreign law.

• Foreign law governs communications relating solely to matters involving

foreign jurisdictions.

• U.S. law applies where a communication “touches” the U.S.

• When applying U.S. law, the frequent issue is whether a person acting in a

legal capacity will be treated as a lawyer for attorney-client privilege.

– Lawyer generally defined as “member of the bar of a court.”

– Issue often arises whether foreign in-house lawyer or legally trained person (e.g.,

patent agent) qualifies.

– Legally trained corporate personnel who are not members of the bar generally

not deemed to be attorney for purposes of privilege.

13

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE: ELEMENTS

• Client – Who is the client in a corporate setting?

• Lawyer – Acting as a lawyer, not as a business person.

• Communication – Facts alone are not privileged.

• Legal Purpose – Business advice is not privileged

• Confidentiality – Intended and maintained.

14

ARE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS LEGAL IN NATURE?

In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2014)

• Qui Tam Relator sought discovery of KBR’s internal investigation materials.

• District Court held that investigation materials were not privileged, and

instead were business in nature because the investigation had been

conducted pursuant to DoD regulations and corporate compliance policy.

– District Court applied “but for” test to determine if “primary purpose” of

investigation was legal.

– District Court found that KBR did not prove that communications would not

have been made “but for” the fact that legal advice was sought.

15

ARE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS LEGAL IN NATURE?

In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2014)

• Appellate Court granted Petition for Writ of Mandamus, holding that the court had committed clear error.

– District Court’s ruling could not be reconciled with Upjohn, which involved a corporate internal investigation.

– Appellate Court applied broad approach to “primary purpose” test:

“Was obtaining or providing legal advice a primary purpose of the communication, meaning one of the significant purposes of the communication?”

See In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., 80 F.Supp. 3d 521, 530

(S.D.N.Y 2015) (adopting KBR standard). Note: Other courts may not apply as expansive an approach to “primary purpose” test,

particularly where the investigation at issue can be described as “run-of-the-mill” and “ordinary business activity.”

16

WHO HAS THE PRIVILEGE?

1. Privilege within the Corporation: Who is the client?

2. Who is the lawyer?

3. Privilege Considerations During Employee Interviews (Communications)

4. Third Parties in Investigations (Confidentiality)

5. The Garner Doctrine

17

WHO ENGAGED THE LAWYER?

• Corporation through General Counsel?

• Board of Directors?

• Audit Committee?

• Special Committee in response to derivative demand?

• Parent? Subsidiary? Affiliates?

• Joint Venture?

• Joint Venturer?

• Multiple Entities?

Practice Point: It is critically important to know to what entity or persons the

attorney owes duties.

18

WHO IS THE CORPORATE “CLIENT”

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE?

• Upjohn Approach

– Federal Question Cases

• “Subject Matter” Approach

– Most States

19

UPJOHN FACTORS:

(1) The information is necessary to supply the basis for legal advice to the

corporation and was ordered to be communicated by superior officers;

(2) The information was not available from “control group” management;

(3) The communications concerned matters within the scope of employees’

duties;

(4) The employees were aware that they were being questioned in order for the

corporation to secure legal advice; and

(5) The communications were considered confidential when made and kept

confidential thereafter.

Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 394-95 (1981).

20

“FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT” TEST

• In some cases a non-employee may be considered to be the “functional

equivalent” of an employee for the purposes of privilege analysis.

• Doctrine established in In re Bieter Co., 16 F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 1994).

• Sometimes narrowly construed where corporation is large and sophisticated.

• Some courts have applied doctrine in large corporation context.

21

FORMER EMPLOYEES

• For privilege to apply, the communications must involve relevant information

learned during employment which is needed by corporate counsel to advise the

client.

• Courts are skeptical where it appears counsel is trying to shape former

employee’s testimony.

• General rule: Prior privileged communications remain privileged even after

employee leaves.

22

SCOPE OF COMMUNICATION WITH FORMER EMPLOYEE

• Communications that extend beyond activities occurring within the course of

the ex-employee’s employment may not be considered privileged.

• Sharing certain information may result in waiver of privileged

communications.

– Disclosure of what others have said.

– Disclosure of matters about which employee would have no knowledge.

See, e.g., Peralta v. Cendant Corp., 190 F.R.D. 38 (D. Conn. 1999).

• Work Product Protection may apply where AC privilege does not.

23


1. Privilege within the Corporation


3. Privilege Consideration During Employee Interviews

4. Third Parties in Investigations


24

WHO IS THE LAWYER?

• Does the matter merit engaging outside counsel?

• May in-house counsel conduct an investigation within the privilege?

Considerations:

• If matter may lead to government involvement, outside counsel may be

perceived as more objective.

• There are additional hurdles for in-house counsel to establish privilege.

• In-house counsel may have occurrence knowledge relevant to the

investigation.

• In-house counsel will not be treated as counsel for certain government

investigations in the EU.

25

IN-HOUSE COUNSEL:

HURDLES TO ESTABLISHING ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE

• Heightened Scrutiny Applied To In-House Counsel By Many U.S. Federal

Courts.

• Two Primary Concerns:

– Dual Roles – Legal vs. Business

– Improper Assertions of Privilege – Using Attorney As Conduit; Improper Use of

Privilege Logs

• Often No Presumption of Privilege.

• Clear Showing Required that Communication Made in a Legal Capacity.

• Particular Skepticism When Document Simultaneously Sent to Legal and Non-

Legal Personnel.

26

CHALLENGES FOR IN-HOUSE COUNSEL

BUSINESS vs. LEGAL

In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 501 F.Supp.2d 789 (E.D. La. 2007)

Facts:

• Merck asserted attorney-client privilege over 30,000 documents (500,000

pages). Majority were emails with attachments.

Merck’s Arguments:

• “Pervasive Regulation Theory”: because drug industry is so extensively

regulated by the FDA, virtually everything a member of the industry does

carries legal problems vis-à-vis government regulators.

• “Collaborative Effort”: Emails addressed to multiple legal and non-legal

personnel are protected even though distribution indicates mixed business and

legal purpose, and not primarily for legal purpose. Counsel uses responses to

emails from across company to provide legal advice.

27

IN RE VIOXX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

Holding: Court rejected Merck’s expansive theories.

• Pervasive Regulation Theory would immunize most of the industry’s

internal communications.

• Despite nature of industry, parties must satisfy burden of demonstrating

elements of privilege.

• Collaborative Effort Theory would effectively immunize all internal

corporate communications, defeating the broad discovery authorized by

the federal rules.

28

IN RE VIOXX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

“The structure of Merck’s enterprise, with its legal department having

such broad powers, and the manner in which it circulates documents, has

consequences that Merck must live with relative to its burden of

persuasion when privilege is asserted. When, for example, Merck

simultaneously sends communications to both lawyers and non-lawyers, it

usually cannot claim that the primary purpose of the communication was

for legal advice or assistance because the communication served both

business and legal purposes.”

501 F.Supp.2d at 805, citing United States v. Chevron Corp., 1996 WL

444597 (N.D. Cal. 1996).

29

BUSINESS vs. LEGAL ADVICE

RECOMMENDATIONS:

• Use legal titles.

• Identify when acting as attorney.

– Expressly state purpose is to provide legal advice.

• Label privileged documents.

• Avoid mixing legal and business advice.

• Limit distribution (email distribution as well).

• When withholding In-House Attorney communications, take steps necessary to

make clear showing privilege applies.

30

PROTECTING COMMUNICATION AMONGST MANAGEMENT

• Keep disclosures to those with a need to know.

• Caution against further disclosures.

• Carefully restrict access to investigation.

31

EU PRIVILEGE RULES REGARDING IN-HOUSE COUNSEL

IN CONTEXT OF EU COMPETITION INVESTIGATIONS

Akzo Nobel Chem. Ltd. And Akcros Chem. Ltd. V. European Commission, Case C-550/07, ECJ (Grand Chamber) 14 September 2010.

• 2003 Dawn Raid of UK Premises

• Seized emails between General Manager (UK) and in-house lawyer – an Advocaat of the Netherlands Bar.

• Both UK and Dutch law would have protected the emails under the Legal Professional Privilege.

• ECJ held that, with respect to EU competition investigations, in-house lawyers are not within the privilege as lawyers, because they do not have sufficient “independence” from their employer.

• Practice Tip: In the EU, it is important to engage outside counsel, particularly for any investigations work, or other highly sensitive legal matters.

32







33

HOLDER OF PRIVILEGE DURING EMPLOYEE INTERVIEWS

• Corporation holds the privilege: It may choose to assert or waive in the future.

• At the beginning of an employee interview it is important to provide Upjohn warnings.

• Instructions:

– Counsel represents the corporation, not the individual employee.

– The interview is protected by the attorney-client privilege.

– The corporation, not the employee, holds the privilege.

– The corporation may decide to waive the privilege and disclose what it learns during the interview.

– The employee should keep the substance of the interview confidential.

Sandra T.E. v. South Berwyn School Dist. 100, 600 F.3d 612, 620 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Upjohn warnings given during employee interview as evidence supporting that investigators were acting as attorneys and reversing order to disclose privileged communications).

34

HOLDER OF PRIVILEGE DURING EMPLOYEE INTERVIEWS

• Without clear Upjohn warnings, an employee may believe that counsel is also

representing the employee.

• If that belief is reasonable, courts may hold privilege applies to both the

employee and the corporation.

• Corporation may be prevented from disclosing information.

• Counsel may be at risk.

U.S. v. Nicholas, 606 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (C.D. Cal. 2009), order rev’d, 583

F.3d 600 (9th Cir. 2009) (investigative counsel failed to give Upjohn warnings

to company employee, despite representing employee personally in a related

case, and referring matter to disciplinary committee).

35







36

USE OF THIRD PARTIES WITHOUT WAIVING PRIVILEGE

• Investigations often require the assistance of third parties.

– Forensic Accountants

– Computer Forensic Specialists

– Consulting Subject Matter Consultants

– Public Relations Personnel

• Use of Third Party Agents should be done carefully and with knowledge of

risk of waiver.

• The primary concern relates to “representing” agents.

• Kovel Doctrine: a consulting expert retained by the attorney or client to assist

the attorney in providing legal advice to the client qualifies as a privileged

agent if consulted for purpose of improving attorney’s comprehension of

factual information as client’s comprehension of legal advice.

37

USE OF THIRD PARTIES WITHOUT WAIVING PRIVILEGE (cont’d)

• Courts differ on the standard required to qualify as a privileged agent.

– “necessary, or at least highly useful for the effective consultation between the

client and the lawyer”

– “nearly indispensible or serve some specialized purpose in facilitating the attorney-

client communications”

See, e.g., Cavallaro v. United States, 284 F.3d 236 (1st Cir. 2002), RESTATEMENT

(THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS § 70 (2000).

-- Public Relations and other consultants often not considered within privilege.

• Engagement Letter With Third Parties:

– Make clear that purpose of engagement is to assist counsel.

– Include language regarding agreement to keep information confidential.

• Counsel should actively supervise third party work.

38







39

GARNER DOCTRINE

• Attorney Client Privilege is Not Absolute in the Fiduciary Context. Garner v.

Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970).

• Based on the ultimate commonality of Interest between counsel and minority

shareholders

– Thus, a corporation cannot keep its minority shareholders from gaining access to

information by claiming privilege.

– Indicia of Good Cause

• Not universal rule.

• Courts generally do not apply the Garner/Fiduciary exception to Work

Product.

– However, Garner factors may support the necessary showing of substantial need

and undue hardship under Rule 26(b)(3).

40

GARNER

• In re Int’l Systems and Control Corp., 693 F.2d 1295 (5th Cir. 1982).

Derivative action arising out of company’s improper payments to third parties.

– Work Product not based on fiduciary relationship; Issue is one of adversity.

– Where Management and Shareholders are adverse the company should be entitled

to work product protection.

– See also In re Metlife Demutualization Litigation, 495 F. Supp. 2d 310 (E.D. N.Y.

2007); Sandberg v. Virginia Bankshares, Inc., 979 F.2d 332 (4th Cir. 1992).

• Key Issues:

– Is there adversity?

– Did it exist at time the document was created?

• Issue in Investigatory Context

– In re Perrigo Co., 128 F.3d 430 (6th Cir. 1997).

41

WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE

• The Work Product Protection may protect investigation materials even if the

Attorney-Client Privilege does not.

• It is important to analyze the application of the Attorney-Client Privilege and

the Work Product Protection separately.

• The Work Product Protection may apply beyond documents and tangible

things – for example, the substance of interviews even if not memorialized in

notes or memoranda.

42

WORK-PRODUCT PROTECTION

• FRCP 26(b)(3) Provides Protection for

– Documents and Tangible Things

– Prepared in Anticipation of Litigation or for Trial

– By or For a Party or a Party’s Representative

– Note: Intangible Work Product Doctrine Broader Than Rule 26

• Qualified Protection for “Ordinary” Work-Product

– Showing of “Substantial Need” and “Undue Hardship” Required

• More Protection for “Opinion” Work-Product

– Showing of “Extraordinary Need”

– Some Federal Courts Provide Absolute Protection for Opinion Work Product.

• Anticipation of Litigation: Standards

– Majority: “Because of Litigation” Test

– Minority: “Primary Motivation” Test

– Note: Need to consider date established for Work Product Protection aligns with

preservation of data, including Litigation Hold Notices

43

RISK OF WAIVER

• WAIVER GENERALLY

– Scope Of Waiver

– Types Of Waiver

• DISCLOSURE TO AUDITORS

• DISCLOSURE TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

44

RISK OF WAIVER

• Waiver may occur in the context of investigations either through unintentional disclosure or through intentional disclosure of privileged material.

• Failure to protect investigation materials within the company may show lack of intent to keep the materials confidential.

– Disclosure only on a need-to-know basis and with admonition to keep confidential.

• Disclosures for business reasons may result in waiver.

• The company may wish to disclose information to government agencies

– If company does not intend to waive, it is important to provide non-privileged

underlying data and other non-privileged facts. – The line between “providing facts” and disclosing the substance of privileged

communications is often murky.

• If the company intends to waive as to disclosed materials only, what is the possible scope of the waiver?

45

FRE 502: SCOPE OF WAIVER

• PRE-RULE 502:

– AC Privilege: Subject Matter Waiver

– WP Protection: Waiver of WP disclosed and perhaps underlying documents;

generally no subject matter waiver

• RULE 502: Subject Matter Waiver only with respect to Intentional

“Disclosure” and only in “Unusual Situations,” but applies to both AC

Privilege and WP Protection.

• Rule 502 addresses only “Disclosure,” not “Use” of privileged of

protected material.

• A Rule 502(d) Order may incorporate Rule 502(a) scope for affirmative

“use” of privileged data

46

FRE 502

• Eliminates Risk that Inadvertent Waiver Will Lead To Broad Subject Matter

Waiver. (FRE 502(a))

• Limits Scope of Waiver for Voluntary Disclosures. (FRE 502(a))

• Enables One Federal Court To Bind All Other Proceedings, State and Federal., if

Disclosures Made In Connection With Proceeding (FRE 502(d))

• Enables Parties To Establish Discovery Protocols

– Claw Back Agreements

– “Quick Peek” Arrangements

– Privilege Log Protocols

– E-Discovery Protocols Regarding Privilege Review

– Agreement on Scope of ESI Preservation

– Agreement to Conduct Phased Discovery

• Consider an FRE 502(d) order in all federal litigation.

47

RULE 502(a)

(a) Disclosure made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or

agency; scope of a waiver. – When the disclosure is made in a federal

proceeding or to a federal office or agency and waives the attorney-client

privilege or work-product protection, the waiver extends to an

undisclosed communication or information in a federal or state

proceeding only if:

(1) the waiver is intentional;

(2) the disclosed and undisclosed communications or information

concern the same subject matter; and

(3) they ought in fairness to be considered together.

48

RULE 502(a)

Explanatory Note: Subdivision (a). The rule provides that a voluntary disclosure in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency, if a waiver, generally results in a waiver only of the communication or information disclosed; a subject matter waiver (of either privilege or work product) is reserved for those unusual situations in which fairness requires a further disclosure of related, protected information, in order to prevent a selective and misleading presentation of evidence to the disadvantage of the adversary. Thus, subject matter waiver is limited to situations in which a party intentionally puts protected information into the litigation in a selective, misleading and unfair manner. It follows that an inadvertent disclosure of protected information can never result in a subject matter waiver.

49

RULE 502(d), (e), (f)

(d) Controlling effect of a court order. – A federal court may order that the

privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure connected with the

litigation pending before the court – in which event the disclosure is also

not a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding.

(e) Controlling effect of a party agreement. – An agreement on the effect

of disclosure in a federal proceeding is binding only on the parties to the

agreement, unless it is incorporated into a court order.

50

DISCLOSURES TO FEDERAL AGENCIES

• Before disclosing information to Federal agency in informal investigation,

consider requesting:

– Agreement that FRE 502 applies to the disclosures

– That disclosure of privileged documents does not waive as to undisclosed

documents

– That the company may claw back documents it determines are privileged

– That the government will seek to have a FRE 502(d) order entered if there is a

subsequent federal proceeding

• Request same agreements if responding to subpoena. If no agreement,

consider motion to quash or for protective order.

• When disclosing: characterize disclosures as not including privileged or

protected information where appropriate.

51

SCOPE OF WAIVER NOT COVERED BY FRE

• Disclosures to State offices or agencies may lead to broader waiver.

-- This creates difficulty where State and Federal agencies are conducting

simultaneous reviews

-- Question may arise regarding scope of waiver if Federal agency provides

privileged information to State agencies. FRE 502(a) should still apply, but no

case law on the issue.

52

IMPLIED WAIVER – AT ISSUE WAIVER

• “At Issue” Waiver occurs where a party raises an issue the effective

rebuttal of which requires inquiry into privileged communications.

• Requires affirmative act; just denying allegations typically does not waive

privilege.

See, e.g., Parker v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 900 F.2d 772, 776

(4th Cir. 1990) (no waiver where opponent attempted to put advice of

counsel at issue).

• Examples of “at issue” waiver:

– Asserting affirmative defense of “Reasonable Investigation”

– Asserting reliance on Advice of Counsel

– Asserting Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

– Asserting Attorney Malpractice

53

IN RE GM: PUBLIC REPORTS AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

• In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., 80 F.Supp. 3d 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

• GM hired outside law firm to conduct internal investigation into the defect and delays in

recalling the affected vehicles.

• Review of over 41 million documents and over 350 interviews.

• The investigative report provided to Board of Directors and to various government agencies,

at least one of which made the report publicly available.

• In subsequent class action plaintiff sought to compel production of underlying interview

memoranda and other work papers behind report.

• The Court found:

– that the materials at issue were conducted as part of the company’s request for legal

advice in light of the potential government investigations and civil suits facing GM.

– the underlying interview material had only been shared with another law firm

representing GM.

– because the privilege protects communications and not facts the privilege is not waived

by public disclosure of the facts.

54

VOLUNTARY WAIVER

DISCLOSURE TO AUDITORS

Under Federal Common Law, the Attorney-Client Privilege Will

Generally Be Waived Through Disclosure To An Auditor.

• Accountants acting as auditors are not acting as agents of counsel.

• NOTE: Several states protect accountant-client communications to

varying degrees by statute.

See TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGES, Chapter 3.

Disclosure of Unredacted Board Minutes May Waive the Attorney-

Client Privilege.

See, e.g., First Federal Sav. Bank of Hegewisch v. U.S., 55 Fed. Cl. 263

(2003); U.S. v. South Chicago Bank, 1998 WL 774001 (N.D. Ill. 1998).

55


WORK PRODUCT

• Two Types of Documents:

– Audit letters

– Pre-existing protected materials

• Are audit letters protected work product?

– Jurisdictions that apply the “Because Of Litigation” standard

generally protect audit letters.

– Where the “Primary Motivation” test is applied, audit letters may not

be protected.

– First Circuit’s “For Use In Litigation” standard would not protect

audit letters.

United States v. Textron, 577 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2009)

56


• Work-Product: Pre-Existing Materials

• Test: Does disclosure to an auditor substantially increase the opportunity for potential

adversaries to obtain the information?

• One Federal Appellate Court decision: Disclosure does not waive WP protection.

United States v. Deloitte LLP, 610 F.3d 129 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

• District Courts Are Split, But Majority Have Found No Waiver.

– No Waiver: In re Pfizer Inc. Sec. Litig., 1993 WL 561125 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); Merrill Lynch

& Co., Inc. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); American

Steamship Owners Mutual P&I Assoc., Inc. v. Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc., 2006 WL

278131 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2006); Lawrence E. Jaffe Pension Plan v. Household Intern.,

237 F.R.D. 176 (N.D. Ill. 2006); In re JDS Uniphase Corp., 2006 WL 2850049 (N.D. Cal.

Oct. 5, 2006); Regions Financial Corp. v. United States, 2008 WL 2139008 (N.D. Ala.

May 8, 2008)

– Waiver: United States v. Hatfield, No. 06-CR-0550, 2010 WL 183522 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 8,

2010); In re Raytheon Sec. Litig., 218 F.R.D. 354 (D. Mass. 2003) (and subsequent

unpublished order); Medinol, Ltd. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 214 F.R.D. 113 (S.D.N.Y.

2002)

57

REQUESTS BY AUDITORS

RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) Negotiate Engagement Letters That Protect The Company.

(a) Agreement to keep audit materials confidential

(b) Agreement to give advance warning prior to disclosure in response to

government or third party subpoena

(2) Negotiate With Auditors.

(a) Identify what information they really need.

(b) Find a way to provide that information without disclosing privileged

information.

(c) Escalate issue to Relationship Partner or National Office.

(3) Disclose Factual Information Rather Than Privileged Communications.

58

DISCLOSURE TO THE GOVERNMENT

SELECTIVE WAIVER

8th Circuit Established Selective Waiver Doctrine In 1977.

Diversified Indus., Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1977)

• Producing internal report to SEC did not waive attorney-client privilege

as to private litigants.

• Court relied on public policy analysis to encourage corporate self-

policing.

59

SELECTIVE WAIVER

Majority of Courts Have Rejected Selection Waiver.

• D.C. Circuit 1981: Permian Corp. v. U.S., 665 F.2d 1214 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

• 4th Circuit 1988: In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619 (4th Cir. 1988)

• 3d Circuit 1991: Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d

Cir. 1991)

• 1st Circuit 1997: U.S. v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 129 F.3d 681 (1st Cir. 1997)

• 6th Circuit 2002: In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litig., 293 F.3d

289 (6th Cir. 2002)

• 10th Circuit 2006: In re Quest Communications Int’l Inc. Sec. Litigation, 450 F.3d 1179

(10th Cir. 2006)

• 9th Circuit 2012: In re Pacific Pictures Corp. v. District Court, 679 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir.

2012)

But see:

2d Circuit 1993: In re Steinhardt Partners, L.P., 9 F.3d 230 (2d. Cir. 1993)

Delaware 2002: Saito v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., 2002 WL 3167622 (Del. Ch. 2002)

60

EVOLUTION OF

GOVERNMENT PRESSURES ON PRIVILEGE

• DOJ – Holder Memo (1999)

• SEC – Seabord Report (2001)

• DOJ – Thompson Memo (2003)

• USSC – Organizational Guidelines (2004)

• DOJ – McCallum Memo (2005)

• USSC – Reversal (April 2006)

• United States v. Stein, 435 F.Supp.2d 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

• DOJ – McNulty Memo (December 2006)

• DOJ –Revisions to United States Attorney’s Manual; McNulty Memo

Withdrawn (August 2008)

• SEC – Enforcement Manual released (October 2008)

• SEC – Enforcement Manual revised (January 2010)

61

DOJ AND SEC GUIDELINES

U.S. ATTORNEY’S MANUAL

• Cooperation requires disclosure of relevant facts known by a corporation.

(§9-28.720)

• “To receive cooperation credit . . . The corporation need not produce, and

prosecutors may not request, protected notes or memoranda generated by

the lawyer’s interviews.” (§9-28.720(a) n.3)

SEC ENFORCEMENT MANUAL (2010)

• A corporation seeking cooperation credit must make timely disclosure of

“all [relevant] facts within the party’s knowledge.” (§4.3)

• “The staff should not ask a party to waive the attorney-client privilege or

work product protection without prior approval of the Director or Deputy

Director.” (§4.3)

62

SELECTIVE WAIVER

RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) Obtain agreement that waiver as to Government is limited only to documents disclosed.

(2) Enter into Confidentiality/Non-Waiver Agreement with Government with respect to third parties.

(a) Confidentiality will be maintained; prohibit disclosure to private parties and other government agencies.

(b) Reserve rights to assert privileges as to third parties.

(c) Agreement made in reliance on confidentiality.

(d) If applicable, state parties acting cooperatively and not as adversaries.

(e) Include non-waiver/“claw back” provision.

(3) Disclose the minimum.

(a) Non-privileged underlying documents.

(b) Work product rather than attorney-client materials.

(4) Consider how to disclose.

(5) Keep track of what is not disclosed.

63

BEST PRACTICES FOR PRESERVING PRIVILEGE

64


• What Can Be Done Before A Problem Arises?

– Train in-house counsel to understand relevant scope of privilege

• What jurisdictions do you deal with?

• Who within the company deals with legal?

– Establish policies and procedures to get counsel involved early in process

• Guidelines for involving counsel

– Employee Training: What is and is not going to stay confidential if things

go bad

• Make sure everyone understands legal v. business distinction

• Dangers of email

65


• Investigation Planning

– Retaining Outside Counsel: Does it help preserve privilege?

– Structure and design of investigation

• Controlled access

– Documentation

– What to tell employees

66


• In-House Counsel, Management and Third Parties During the Investigation

– Keeping communication within the legal umbrella

• Who needs to know what is being done?

• How do you deal with reports and updates?

– Coordinating PR and IR functions

– Coordinating with employees and individual counsel

67


• Documentation and Handling of Confidential Information

– Don’t overdo it: Limiting assertions and overreaching

– Process and controls

– Segregation: Fact v. Opinion

• How to Deal with Waiver Requests

– New Evidentiary rules and protections

• Managing Joint Defense Arrangements

– Benefits

– Dangers