In House Counsel and Attorney Client Privilege Protecting - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

In‐House Counsel and Attorney‐Client Privilege

Protecting Confidential Information in Business Communications, Depositions and Litigations

Today’s faculty features:

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2013

Today s faculty features:

Michael B. Hayes, Partner, Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, Philadelphia Kenneth E. McKay, Partner, Locke Lord, Houston Brian M. Martin, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, KLA-Tencor Corp., Milpitas, Calif.

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.

Tips for Optimal Quality

S d Q lit S

• und 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 and you are listening via your computer speakers, 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 PIN -when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail

sound@ straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem.

If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Qualit y To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again press the F11 key again.

Continuing Education Credits

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps:

• In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of

attendees at your location attendees at your location

• Click the SEND button beside the box

Conference Materials

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps:

• Click on the + sign next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-

hand column on your screen 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.

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

• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

In-House Counsel and The Attorney-Client Privilege: R D l d C A li i Recent Developments and Common Applications

Ken McKay

Litigation Partner Locke Lord LLP 600 Travis, Suite 2800 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 226-1127 kmckay@lockelord.com

Overview Overview

• The Applicable Legal Standards and Factors Considered in

A l i h P i il I H C l C i i Applying the Privilege to In-House Counsel Communication

• Recent Developments and Common Applications

p pp

– Internal Investigations, including Corporate Miranda Warnings – “At Issue” Waivers relating to External Investigations & Corporate Litigation Litigation – Board Presentations – Corporate Acquisitions – Impact of Business Globalization on the Privilege

• Suggested Best Practices

gg

6

The Attorney-Client Privilege The Attorney Client Privilege

• To ensure open and complete communication between a client and his attorney by eliminating the

possibility of subsequent compelled disclosure of their confidential communications. p y q p

• The party invoking the privilege must establish that:

– the professed privilege holder is or sought to become the attorney’s client; – the person to whom the communication was made was a licensed attorney “or his subordinate” acting in the capacity of a lawyer at the time the communication was made; – the communication concerns a fact that was communicated to the attorney by his client

• utside the presence of strangers;

p g – for the purpose of obtaining a legal opinion, legal services or “assistance in some legal proceeding”; – the communication was not made “for the purpose of committing a crime or tort”; h f d h ld ll l i d h i il d – the professed holder actually claimed the privilege; and – he did not waive the privilege

In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 501 F.Supp.2d 789 (E.D. La. 2007); United States v. Noriega, 917 f.2d 1543 (11th Cir. 1990). 7

Th A li bl L l S d d d The Applicable Legal Standards and Factors Considered in Applying the Factors Considered in Applying the Privilege to In-House Counsel C i i Communication

8

A Different Standard? A Different Standard?

Courts have repeatedly held that there is no Courts have repeatedly held that there is no distinction between the standard to be li d f i h d id l f applied for in-house and outside counsel for purposes of the attorney-client privilege.

See Hertzog, Calamari & Gleason v. Prudential Ins., 850 F. Supp. 255 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); U.S. v. Mobil Corp., 149 F.R.D. 533 (N.D. Tex. 1993)

But there is a distinction, at least in application at least in application.

9

Why is a different standard applied to in-house counsel?

Principally because in-house counsel often perform non- legal business functions within their organizations and the law requires that privilege analysis distinguish the two law requires that privilege analysis distinguish the two Having attorneys serve in dual capacities is the most v g ys s v d c p c s s s frequently-cited factor as a basis for denying a claim of privilege.

See Teltron, Inc. v. Alexander, 132 F.R.D. 394 (E.D. Pa. 1990); N.C. Elec. Membership

• Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 110 F.R.D. 511, 517 (M.D.N.C. 1986)

10

Satisfying the “Attorney” Requirement

• f the Attorney-Client Privilege

General Rule: If an in-house counsel is acting in her capacity as an attorney, the attorney-client i il li Wh h l i ti b i d i h privilege applies. Where, however, counsel is acting as a business advisor or has

• nly limited involvement, the privilege does not apply.

“[T]he privilege is limited to confidential communications with an attorney acting in his professional legal capacity for the express purpose of securing legal advice. As a general rule, an attorney who serves a client in a business capacity may not assert the attorney client privilege because of the lack of a confidential relationship Thus the attorney-client privilege because of the lack of a confidential relationship. Thus,

• rdinary business advice is not protected.”

Teltron, Inc. v. Alexander, 132 F.R.D. 394 (E.D. Pa. 1990). See also N.C. Elec. Membership

• Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 110 F.R.D. 511, 514 (M.D.N.C. 1986).
• Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 110 F.R.D. 511, 514 (M.D.N.C. 1986).

11

There is no Silver Bullet

No single factor is No single factor is dispositive in every case case.

See N.C. Elec. Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 110 F.R.D. 511, 516 (M.D.N.C. 1986) 12

Examples of Potentially “Non-Legal” Functions Performed by In-House Counsel

– Conducting investigations Conducting investigations – Fact-gathering regarding issues that may later be the subject of litigation – Regulatory compliance issues – Matters concerning the functioning of the entity

See e.g. Giffin v. Smith, 688 S.W.2d 112 (Tex. 1985) (General counsel's communications found not to be privileged despite his role in corporate investigation because there was no evidence that the communication was confidential). ) 13

Dual Capacities p

In-house counsel routinely handle mixed business and legal functions, sometimes with dual titles such as

̶ Corporate Secretary ̶ Vice President ̶ Board Member

These are sometimes perceived to be capacities separate from their These are sometimes perceived to be capacities separate from their legal functions A l hi h d d i i li d h Apparently, an even higher standard is sometimes applied where such is the case: “[I]n a situation where the author or recipient of allegedly privileged doc ments f nctions as a corporate manager as ell as an attorne documents functions as a corporate manager as well as an attorney, efforts must include clear designation of those communications sent

• r received in his capacity as a legal advisor.”

H d N Y k N I 114 F R D 633 644 (S D N Y 1987) Hardy v. New York News, Inc., 114 F.R.D. 633, 644 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). 14

How Does an In-House Attorney Meet this Burden?

Court’s finding in Hardy “Although some of the documents [were] addressed to [in- Although some of the documents [were] addressed to [in house counsel], there was nothing to indicate that [he] requested or received any of the documents at issue, or q y the information contained in them, in the capacity of a legal advisor and solely for the purpose of rendering d advice to the corporation.”

Hardy v New York News Inc 114 F R D 633 644 (S D N Y 1987) Hardy v. New York News, Inc., 114 F.R.D. 633, 644 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). 15

Applicable Test Applicable Test

The client’s communication must be for the The client s communication must be for the primary or dominant purpose of soliciting legal, rather than business, advice. g

See N.C. Elec. Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 110 F.R.D. 511, 514 (M.D.N.C. 1986); Teltron, Inc. v. Alexander, 132 F.R.D. 394, 396 (E.D. Pa. 1990) (“[must be able to] clearly demonstrate that the advice to be protected was given in a professional legal capacity.”); U.S Postal Serv. V. Phelps Dodge Ref. Corp., 852 F. Supp. 156 (E.D.N.Y. 1994). legal capacity. ); U.S Postal Serv. V. Phelps Dodge Ref. Corp., 852 F. Supp. 156 (E.D.N.Y. 1994). 16

Factors to be Considered Factors to be Considered

• Is the subject “ordinary business activities”?

Is the subject ordinary business activities ? Whether the subject matter of the document is primarily business-oriented, such as documents discussing cost i f ti t h i l d t t t ti ti d li information, technical data, contract negotiations, delivery problems or lobbying efforts.

S C l A B d C 106 F D 201 205 (D C Ci 1985) ( l di h i i b See Coleman v. Am. Broad. Cos., 106 F.R.D. 201, 205 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (concluding that communications between an attorney and another individual which relate to business, rather than legal matters, do not fall within the protection

• f the privilege.); N.C. Elec. Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 110 F.R.D. 511, 514 (M.D.N.C. 1986).

Stated differently, would the document have been prepared whether

• r not the attorney was sent a copy?

U S Postal Serv V Phelps Dodge Ref Corp 852 F Supp 156 163 (E D N Y 1994) U.S Postal Serv. V. Phelps Dodge Ref. Corp., 852 F. Supp. 156, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 1994). 17

Factors to be Considered Factors to be Considered

• Do the documents specifically request legal advice or,

if generated by counsel, reference the request for legal advice?

See N.C. Elec. Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 110 F.R.D. 511, 516 (M.D.N.C. 1986) 18

Factors to be Considered Factors to be Considered

• Was the communication

confidential? Whether the document in question is simply marked “Memorandum” with no Memorandum with no notation of confidentiality

See N.C. Elec. Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 110 F.R.D. 511, 516 (M.D.N.C. 1986)

19

This is not just a question of labeling. Does the communication itself reveal any confidential information?

See N.C. Elec. Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 110 F.R.D. 511, 514 (M.D.N.C. 1986) ( ) 20

Can you overuse your y y “Privileged” stamp?

No case so finding, but perhaps. g, p p

21

Factors to be Considered Factors to be Considered

Did the attorney have only “Limited Involvement” in the Matter? Matter?

• Whether the document is addressed to a number of individuals,

l f h i i h l

• nly one of whom is in-house counsel
• “Copying the Lawyer” does not create a privileged document.

An entity cannot shield its business transactions from discovery simply by funneling its communications through an attorney. p y y g g y

See U.S Postal Serv. V. Phelps Dodge Ref. Corp., 852 F. Supp. 156 (E.D.N.Y. 1994); Teltron, Inc. v. Alexander, 132 F.R.D. 394, 396 (E.D. Pa. 1990); Hardy v. New York News, Inc., 114 F.R.D. 633 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). 22

“Limited Involvement” (Cont.) Limited Involvement (Cont.)

• Whether the document is addressed to counsel vs. “cc” and

Whethe the docu e t s add essed to cou se vs. cc a d whether many others, outside of the legal function, were addressees Wh h h d f h “ l”

• Whether the document refers to her as “counsel”
• Whether the documents were segregated from other, non-

g g , privileged documents.

• Whether the document was marked as “Privileged” and/or

g “Confidential”

See Hardy v. New York News, Inc., 114 F.R.D. 633,644 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); U.S Postal Serv. V. Phelps Dodge Ref. Corp., 852 F. Supp. 156 (E.D.N.Y. 1994). 23

Recent Application: US v. Halifax Hospital Med. Ctr.

• Hospital claimed privilege for hundreds of its in house counsel’s
• Hospital claimed privilege for hundreds of its in-house counsel s

e-mails to a False Claims Act whistleblower.

• Judge protected none of the documents claimed to be privileged

by the hospital.

• “Communications between corporate client and corporate

counsel…involve a much different dynamic and require the counsel…involve a much different dynamic and require the proponent to satisfy a ‘purpose and intent’ threshold test.”

2012 WL 5415108 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2012) 24

Recent Application: US v. Halifax Hospital Med. Ctr.

• “when a communication is simultaneously emailed to a lawyer and a non-

when a communication is simultaneously emailed to a lawyer and a non lawyer, the corporation ‘cannot claim that the primary purpose of the communication was for legal advice or assistance because the communication served both business and legal purposes.” g p p

• The court found that putting a lawyer in the “cc” field of an e-mail also sent

to non-lawyers meant the e-mail was not privileged to non lawyers meant the e mail was not privileged.

• The court found that employees communications with in-house counsel

regarding the legality of certain payments fell into the crime fraud exception regarding the legality of certain payments fell into the crime-fraud exception because it contemplated such acts and was not privileged.

2012 WL 5415108 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2012) 25

And what about a law firm’s in-house counsel in a malpractice case?

• Currently pending before the Georgia Supreme Court is a
• Currently pending before the Georgia Supreme Court is a

question regarding the application of the attorney-client privilege as it pertains to firm lawyers who sought advice from a firm’s in- house general counsel in connection with a client’s malpractice claim.

• Factors considered by the appellate court:

– Whether the firm’s general counsel participated in the work – Whether the firm’s general counsel functions in that position (1) full-time; (2) on a formal, ongoing basis; or (3) on an as-needed basis.

Hunter, Maclean, Exley & Dunn, P.C. v. St. Simons Waterfront, LLC, 730 S.E.2d 608 (July 13, 2012) 26

The In-House Privilege in the Context of The In-House Privilege in the Context of Internal Investigations

27

Rule 1.13 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct

(a) A lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization (a) A lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents… (f) In dealing with an organization’s directors, officers, employees, members, ( ) g g p y shareholders or other constituents, a lawyer shall explain the identity of the client when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the

• rganization’s interests are adverse to those of the constituents with whom

the lawyer is dealing. y g Comment 10: …Care must be taken to assure that the individual understands that, when there is such adversity of interest, the lawyer for the organization cannot provide legal representation for that constituent individual and that cannot provide legal representation for that constituent individual, and that discussions between the lawyer for the organization and the individual may not be privileged.

ABA Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct (1983) (emphasis added)

28

Case Study: Broadcom Option Backdating Investigation

• B

d ’ b d hi d l t d t i t l i ti ti di it ll d

• Broadcom’s board hired lawyers to conduct an internal investigation regarding its alleged

practice of backdating stock options. Shortly thereafter, civil suits were filed against the company and several of its executives.

• The lawyers conducted an interview of the CFO, but never disclosed to him that they

The lawyers conducted an interview of the CFO, but never disclosed to him that they represented only Broadcom and that whatever he told them could later be disclosed at Broadcom’s discretion.

• The SEC and US Attorney’s Office then commenced an investigation of several Broadcom

executives relating to the company’s option granting practices and Broadcom agreed to allow interviews of its attorneys regarding the internal investigation, including information concerning the CFO’s interview.

• The CFO

as indicted b t claimed that the information from the meetings as pri ileged

• The CFO was indicted, but claimed that the information from the meetings was privileged.

The lawyers claimed that, at the beginning of the interview, they had provided the CFO with an Upjohn or Corporate Miranda warning, but the CFO denied receiving such a warning.

29

Case Study: Broadcom Option Backdating Investigation

Th di i h ld h “ l i d

• The district court held that: “an oral warning, as opposed to a

written waiver of the clear conflict presented by [the law firm’s] representation of both Broadcom and [the CFO], is simply not ffi i d di l i i li sufficient to suspend or dissolve an existing attorney-client relationship and to waive the privilege.”

• Ultimate outcome:

– Ninth Circuit reversed based upon the CFO’s knowledge that the investigation was to be turned over to the company’s auditors and probably the government. – The district court referred the law firm to the California State Bar for disciplinary action.

See United States v Ruehle 583 F 3d 600 (9th Cir 2009); See United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600 (9 Cir. 2009); United States v. Nicholas, 606 F.Supp. 2d 1109 (C.D. Cal. 2009). 30

The Proper Upjohn or Corporate Miranda Warning

• Disclosures (before the interview begins):

– The lawyer represents the company and not the individual personally. – The interview is part of an investigation being conducted for the purpose of providing legal advice to the company. – The interview is protected by the attorney-client privilege that belongs solely to the company and not the individual not the individual. – The privilege is subject to waiver at any time by the company without the individual’s consent or knowledge. – The substance of the interview is to be kept confidential, including as to other employees. – The individual may want to retain outside counsel to represent his interests The individual may want to retain outside counsel to represent his interests.

• Make a written record of the disclosures

– Additionally, Upjohn Waivers are sometimes utilized at the time of hiring or at the inception of an investigation. investigation.

See also, Upjohn Warnings: Recommended Best Practices When Corporate Counsel Interacts with Corporate Employees, American Bar Association (http:meetings.abanet.org/webupload/commupload/CR301000/newsletterpubs/ ABAUpjohnTaskForceReport pdf) ABAUpjohnTaskForceReport.pdf) 31

The In-House Privilege in the Context

• f “At Issue” Waivers
• f At Issue Waivers

32

Case Study: B of A’s Proxy Statement re: Merrill Lynch Acquisition

• Regarding investigations conducted by the SEC and the NY Attorney General’s office

Regarding investigations conducted by the SEC and the NY Attorney General s office concerning possible misleading statements in B of A’s proxy statement which solicited approval for the acquisition of Merrill Lynch, B of A claimed that the statements were not misleading and that the bank’s lawyers determined what to disclose, but was not willing to waive the A/C privilege so that the lawyers’ involvement could be investigated.

• B of A claimed that it had not put the subject matter of legal advice “at issue” because it

had not asserted reliance of legal advice as a justification for any inadequate or wrongful disclosures; but rather, that the disclosures complied with all applicable laws.

• B of A claimed that a regulator cannot create a basis for waiver of the A/C privilege by

compelling answers to questions that might provoke answers concerning privileged

• communications. The holder of the privilege alone must affirmatively place the advice he

i d f hi “ i ” i h received from his attorney “at issue” in the case.

• B of A’s ultimate agreement to waive the privilege and settle with the SEC did not resolve

the question as to the NY AG’s investigation, which is ongoing.

See Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bank of America Corp., 653 F.Supp.2d 507, 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

33

Case Study: B of A’s Proxy Statement re: Merrill Lynch Acquisition

Question: If B of A had not chosen to waive the privilege, ld b h i i i h b h d d would both investigations have been thwarted due to lack of evidence regarding reliance on legal d i ? advice?

34

The In-House Privilege in the Context of Board Presentations

35

Case Study: Maxim Option Back-Dating Case

• Facts: A special committee formed by Maxim’s board of directors
• Facts: A special committee formed by Maxim s board of directors

shared the report of its outside counsel’s special investigation with the full board, which included individual board members who were under investigation for alleged wrongdoing, under investigation for alleged wrongdoing,

• Trial Court Decision

M i i d l i i il di i i i h id – Maxim waived any claim to privilege regarding communications with outside counsel because board members who were individual defendants were present at the meeting that the relationship between the individual defendant board members and the special committee was “adversarial in nature,” and th t th i il did t th f i that the privilege did not therefore survive. – The board presentations waived privilege not merely as to the report itself, but to all communications relating to the subject matter of the investigation.

Ryan v Gifford Civ Action No 2213 CC (Del Ch Nov 30 2007) [unpublished opinion] Ryan v. Gifford, Civ. Action No. 2213-CC (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2007), [unpublished opinion] 36

Case Study: Maxim Option Back-Dating Case

• Subsequent Denial of Interlocutory Review

– “The decision was the result only of the application of well-settled precedent to a set of particular and specific facts.... [T]he relevant factual circumstances here include the receipt of purportedly privileged information by the here include the receipt of purportedly privileged information by the director defendants in their individual capacities from the Special

• Committee. The decision would not apply to a situation (unlike that

presented in this case) in which board members are found to be acting in their fiduciary capacity where their personal lawyers are not present and their fiduciary capacity, where their personal lawyers are not present, and where the board members do not use the privileged information to exculpate

• themselves. Similarly, the decision would not affect the privileges of a

Special Litigation Committee formed under Zapata, or any other kind

• f committee that (unlike the Special Committee here) has the power
• f committee that (unlike the Special Committee here) has the power

to take actions without approval of other board members.”

Ryan v. Gifford, 2008 Del. Ch. LEXIS 2 (Del. Ch. Jan. 2, 2008) 37

Th I H P i il i h C f The In-House Privilege in the Context of Asset Acquisitions Asset Acquisitions

38

Who Owns the Attorney/Client Privilege After an Asset Acquisition?

• The answer apparently varies by jurisdiction
• New York:

– The seller retains the privilege as to communications with its counsel concerning the transaction and as to assets/liabilities not included in the sale. – The buyer acquires the privilege as to pre-closing issues pertaining to post-closing operations

See Tekni-Plex, Inc. v. Meyner & Landis, 674 N.E.2d 663 (N.Y. 1996); Postorivo v. AG Paintball Holdings, Inc., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 2991, VC Parsons (2/7/08) (applying New York law) 39

Who Owns the Attorney/Client Privilege After an Asset Acquisition?

• Illinois:

The buyer generally acquires the privilege as a whole – The buyer generally acquires the privilege as a whole, including assets/liabilities not included in the sale

See American Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. NWI-I, Inc., 240 F.R.D. 401 (N.D. Ill 2007) 40

Th I f B i Gl b li i The Impact of Business Globalization

• n the In-House Privilege

g

41

Akzo Nobel Case: N P i il f I H C l No Privilege for In-House Counsel Communications

On September 14, 2010, the European Court of Justice issued its final opinion excluding communications between in-house counsel and the entity’s l f h i f h E U i ’ h employees from the protection of the European Union’s counterpart to the attorney-client privilege (“the legal professional privilege”) in the context of a dawn raid by European Commission authorities.

42

From Akzo Nobel Opinion: kz N e p

“An in-house lawyer…does not enjoy the same degree of i d d f hi l l ki i independence from his employer as a lawyer working in an external law firm does in relation to his client. Consequently, an in-house lawyer is less able to deal effectively with any conflicts between his professional obligations and the aims of his client ” between his professional obligations and the aims of his client. Also cited as a basis for the decision: The rt’ r r th f t th t i court’s concern over the fact that in- house counsel are “dual-purpose” lawyers in that they perform functions in addition to legal representation of the company. representation of the company.

43

Akzo Nobel Case: Possible Implications

• Although in the context of an investigation into alleged anti-

competitive activities, the language of the opinion seems to indicate b d li i b h ECJ b d broader application by the ECJ to a broader context.

• Communications with in-house counsel in the United States that

Communications with in-house counsel in the United States that would be clearly privileged must be scrutinized in any company

• perating in the EU or routinely conducting business there.

44

Akzo Nobel Case: Possible Implications

Questions: Questions:

– In an EU investigation (or perhaps any EU proceeding), will the origin of the communication determine whether a communication is privileged? Or the location of the proceeding? p g – May information seized by an EU investigation containing attorney-client communications be shared with its U.S. counterparts? – Does information contained in digital form exist anywhere it can be accessed g y by computer? – If a U.S. court determines that an entity had no expectation that the communication would be privileged because of its significant business in the EU ill th t i bl ff t d ti i il d t i ti ? EU, will that conceivably affect a domestic privilege determination? – If a U.S. court is asked to determine whether such communications are privileged that would otherwise not be privileged in the EU, what would be the outcome? the outcome?

45

Belgacom Case: In-House Counsel Advice May Be Privileged

In March of 2013, the Brussels Court of Appeals opined that Court of Appeals opined that, under Belgian law, legal advice rendered by in-house counsel y may be afforded protection equivalent to legal privilege.

46

Belgacom Case Belgacom Case

• Similar to Akzo Nobel this was a dawn raid to
• Similar to Akzo Nobel, this was a dawn raid to

investigate allegedly anticompetitive behavior, but was carried out by the Belgian Competition Authority under carried out by the Belgian Competition Authority under Belgian law. (EU Members themselves have the principal responsibility for regulation of lawyers.)

• The court explicitly declined to follow the EU rule

articulated in Akzo Nobel under Belgian law.

• Also noted that the Belgian privilege is derived from

the European Convention on Human Rights and the h f d l h EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

47

Belgacom Case: Possible Implications

Questions: Questions:

– Since the language of the opinion limits the privilege to in-house counsel that are members of the Belgian Institute for Company Lawyers (“IJE/IBJ”), can an in-house lawyer who is not a member or in another country avail y y herself of this privilege? Statutory law attaches confidentiality to only members’ legal advice because they subject themselves to professional responsibility rules. Gi h h b i B l i l hi h i i d h E – Given that the basis was a Belgian law which is premised upon the European Convention of Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, could this serve as a basis for challenges to the Akzo Nobel ruling in other EU countries and in other circumstances? U cou t es a d

• t e c cu sta ces?

– Note here that the court found that national laws applied (as opposed to EU laws) when a national authority acts at the request of the EU Commission.

48

Suggested Best Practices gg

• Make strategic decisions regarding which types of documents to protect
• Reconsider dual titles and perhaps dual functions, where possible
• Make a practice of specifically referencing the “request for legal advice” or of the

“legal advice” being provided

• Address communications to counsel rather than using “cc”
• Label documents to be protected as “Attorney-Client Privileged” and

“Confidential” (but perhaps not a label to every e-mail transmitted) Confidential (but perhaps not a label to every e mail transmitted)

• In addition to in-house counsel themselves, non-lawyers who interact with in-

house lawyers must be educated on privilege parameters

49

Suggested Best Practices (cont.) gg ( )

• Separate factual recitations and business considerations from actual legal advice as

much as possible, i.e. “here is what the law is” or “here is my legal advice” c s poss b e, .e. e e s w e w s o e e s y eg dv ce

• Create a new e-mail rather than hitting the “Reply” option as an initial e-mail may

affect whether the Reply is privileged. See Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 501 F Supp 2d 789 (E D La 2007) F.Supp.2d 789 (E.D. La. 2007)

• Understand whether data/communications are being stored on a server in the

European Union or other jurisdiction where privilege may not be recognized

• Create appropriate Upjohn/Corporate Miranda warning documents for investigation

interviews

• C

id th i f ti t b di l d t b d ti d tt d

• Consider the information to be disclosed at board meetings and attendees
• Except where absolutely necessary, assume the privilege does not exist
• Where absolutely critical to protect privilege involve outside counsel

Where absolutely critical to protect privilege, involve outside counsel

50

In-House Counsel and The Attorney-Client Privilege: R D l d C A li i Recent Developments and Common Applications

Ken McKay

Litigation Partner Locke Lord LLP 600 Travis, Suite 2800 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 226-1127 kmckay@lockelord.com

In-House Counsel and the Attorney-Client Privilege: Protecting Confidential Information in Business Communications Depositions and Litigation Communications, Depositions and Litigation ___________________________

Program Materials Prepared by: g p y

Michael Hayes

Partner, Litigation Department and E-Discovery Group Co-Chair Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 123 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19109 (215) 772-7211 mhayes@mmwr.com

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 52

Facts Versus Privileged Communications Facts Versus Privileged Communications



The attorney-client privilege offers protection against the forced disclosure y p g p g

• f confidential communications between client and lawyer.



The privilege does not, however, extend to protect against disclosure of the facts discussed in otherwise confidential attorney-client communications.

53

F t V P i il d C i ti ( t’d) Facts Versus Privileged Communications (cont’d)

A fact is one thing and a communication concerning that fact is an entirely diff t thi Th li t t b ll d t th ti different thing. The client cannot be compelled to answer the question, ‘What did you say or write to the attorney?’ but may not refuse to disclose any relevant fact within his knowledge merely because he incorporated a statement of such fact into his communication with the attorney.

Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395-96 (1981).

Facts are discoverable the legal conclusions regarding those facts are not Facts are discoverable, the legal conclusions regarding those facts are not. A litigant cannot shield from discovery the knowledge it possessed by claiming it has been communicated to a lawyer; nor can a litigant refuse to disclose facts simply because the information came from a lawyer.

Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 32 F.3d 851, 864 (3d Cir. 1994).

54

Documents and the Privilege Documents and the Privilege



Documents which would not be privileged if they remained in the client’s hands do not acquire protection merely because they are transferred to a lawyer.

See United States v. Robinson, 121 F.3d 971, 975 (5th Cir. 1997); Gould, Inc. v. Mitsui Min. & Smelting Co., Ltd., 825 F.2d 676, 679-80 (2d Cir. 1987); see also Zelaya v. UNICO Service Co., 682 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2010).



Nor does the mere fact that a document acknowledges the existence of an attorney-



Nor does the mere fact that a document acknowledges the existence of an attorney- client communication imbue the document with privilege protection.

See Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 177 F.R.D. 491 (D. Kan. 1997) (ordering production of redacted document concerning scientific studies conducted for defendant relating that a draft work statement was submitted to in-house counsel for legal input) statement was submitted to in-house counsel for legal input).



However, documents need not be authored by or addressed to an attorney in order to

• btain attorney-client privileged status.

See SEPTA v. Caremark PCS Health, L.P., 254 F.R.D. 253, 258 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (“[T]he privilege may also extend to certain documents, that while not involving employees assisting counsel, still reflect confidential communications between client and counsel . . . .”).

55

Documents and the Privilege (cont’d) Documents and the Privilege (cont d)



Employees can share privileged communications in order to relay information requested by counsel or to properly inform the corporation of legal advice without waiving the privilege waiving the privilege.

See Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 232 F.R.D. 467, 477 (E.D. Pa. 2005).



Drafts of the client’s confidential communications with counsel are protected. p

See WebXchange v. Dell, Inc., 264 F.R.D. 123 (D. Del. 2010) (client’s notes memorializing privileged communications with counsel protected by the privilege); see also Laethem Equip. Co.

• v. Deere & Co., 261 F.R.D. 127, 142 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (“drafts of a [confidential] communication

to an attorney are privileged.”); Adamowicz v. I.R.S., 672 F. Supp. 2d 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).



Drafts of documents (including contracts) prepared by counsel or circulated to counsel for comment on legal issues may be privileged to the extent that they contain information not included in the final version.

See Muller v. Walt Disney Prods., 871 F. Supp. 678, 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (“Preliminary drafts of contracts are generally protected by attorney/client privilege, since they may reflect not only client confidences, but also legal advice and opinions of attorneys.”).

56

What About Facts Compiled, Analyzed and Reported Internally at the at bout acts Co p ed, a y ed a d epo ted te a y at t e Request of Counsel?



Internally-generated corporate reports and analyses may be protected from disclosure depending on the nature of the documents and the circumstances surrounding their creation.

See Holt v. KMI-Continental, Inc., 95 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal report reviewing employer’s potential exposure for Equal Pay Act violations was protected by the attorney-client privilege as it sought legal advice in connection with employment discrimination action). 

Factual information contained in internal reports commissioned by in-house counsel generally are not protected by the privilege (but may constitute work product depending on the primary motivation for their creation).

See Smith v. Texaco, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 354, 357 (E.D. Tex. 1999) (rejecting claim of privilege in connection with data drawn from employee records an internal report commissioned by in-house counsel subject to discovery). 

However, interpretive material and analyses contained in such reports may constitute confidential communications from client to counsel and therefore fall within the privilege.

See id. (finding “interpretive material comprised of tables, lists, statistical analyses, and graphical representations” contained in report commissioned by in-house counsel were covered by the attorney-client privilege). 57

Confidentiality and the Privilege in the Corporate Context y g p



In order for the attorney-client privilege to apply, the parties to the communications at issue must have intended and in fact kept them confidential.

S C f ( C ) See Pritchard v. County of Erie, 473 F.3d 413, 418-19 (2d Cir. 2007).



Communications involving in-house counsel acting primarily in a business role, rather than a legal one, are not entitled to privilege protection.



Marking an email, letter, memorandum or draft “Confidential” and/or “Attorney-Client Privileged” does not guarantee applicability of the privilege, but is a factor courts consider when making privilege determinations. Careless overuse of these labels should, however, be carefully avoided.



In federal court, attorney-client communications in the corporate context remain confidential so long as they are only disseminated to individuals/employees who “need to know” about them.

See WebXchange Inc v Dell Inc 264 F R D 123 126 (D Del 2010); Southeast Pa Transp See WebXchange Inc. v. Dell Inc., 264 F.R.D. 123, 126 (D. Del. 2010); Southeast Pa. Transp.

• Auth. v. CaremarkPCS Health, L.P., 254 F.R.D. 253, 260 (E.D. Pa. 2008); Williams v.

Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 238 F.R.D. 633, 641 (D. Kan. 2006); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 561

• F. Supp. 1247, 1258-59 (E.D.N.Y. 1982).

58

Consider Confidentiality Concerns Consider Confidentiality Concerns



In order to properly identify and assess potentially privileged communications, you must consider whether your legal advice was sought and provided in confidence: and provided in confidence:

 Have the participants in / audience to your privileged communications

been appropriately limited to those who “need to know?”

 Has the confidential nature of your privileged communications been

respected and maintained?

 Have you established and maintained clear distinctions between your

confidential communications as in-house counsel versus communications involving your business role(s)?

 Does your company have any policies or procedures concerning how

confidential legal advice is to be requested, provided, and disseminated? Have they been consistently followed?

59

E C fid ti lit t P t t th P i il Ensure Confidentiality to Protect the Privilege



Maintaining confidentiality in your attorney-client communications is essential to establish privilege and avoid waiver essential to establish privilege and avoid waiver.

At a deposition, the smart deposing lawyer . . . will not merely ask the in-house counsel to repeat communications made to him by upper management and hope that she momentarily forgets the privilege and answers the question. Rather, the lawyer will attempt, through rigorous questioning, t l f d ti f th t th t th i ti t t ll i il d to lay a foundation for the argument that the communications are not actually privileged or, alternatively, that the privilege has been waived. For example, the lawyer will ask the in-house lawyer to name all recipients of the subject communication to see if any third parties received the information which, if so, would constitute a waiver of the privilege. Or, the lawyer will question the in-house attorney about all the measures taken to ensure that the communication remained confidential and not subject to disclosure, again hoping to later argue that a waiver has occurred. j , g p g g The equally smart in-house lawyer, therefore, will take the necessary steps - long before receiving a deposition subpoena - to ensure that the privilege is not only established at the time of the communication, but also maintained thereafter. Todd Presnell, Depositions of In-House Counsel – Protecting the Attorney-Client Privilege; I H D f Q 50 (Wi t 2007) ( h i dd d) In-House Def. Q. 50 (Winter 2007) (emphasis added).

60

Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege In Federal Proceedings



Federal Rule of Evidence 501 governs choice of law issues involving the



Federal Rule of Evidence 501 governs choice of law issues involving the attorney client privilege.

 Diversity cases: state law applies  Federal question cases: federal law applies



Federal Rule of Evidence 502(f) applies federal law of waiver to all federal proceedings.

61

Inadvertent Disclosure, Waiver and Federal Rule of Evidence 502



F.R.E. 502 reflects an attempt to reduce the substantial costs and p significant risks associated with discovery (including e-discovery).



The Rule also addresses concerns that the inadvertent production of privileged documents in discovery could result in broad subject matter privileged documents in discovery could result in broad subject matter waiver.



FRE 502 Allows for subject matter waiver only where the disclosure is “intentional” and where disclosed and undisclosed communications should “in fairness” be considered together. See F.R.E. 502(a).

62

Inadvertent Disclosure, Waiver and F.R.E. 502 (continued)



FRE 502 prevents any waiver where the producing party made reasonable ff t b th t t t i t d tif th i d t t di l f efforts both to protect against and rectify the inadvertent disclosure of privileged communications.



The Rule does not address or supplant other common law principles of i ( h d d i li d i ) waiver (such as coerced and implied waivers).



Limits application to “disclosure” not “use”.

63

F.R.E. 502 Prevents Finding of Subject Matter Waiver Based on Inadvertent Disclosure

(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 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.

64

F.R.E. Rule 502(a) Explanatory Note

S bdi i i ( ) Th l id h l di l i f d l 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 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 p p g g unfair manner. It follows that an inadvertent disclosure of protected information can never result in a subject matter waiver.

65

F.R.E. Rule 502(a): Intentional Waiver



“A party must intend to waive the privilege or protection in order for there to b i f di l d i f ti t t R l 502( ) ” B be a waiver of undisclosed information pursuant to Rule 502(a).” Bear Republic Brewing Co. v. Central City Brewing Co., 275 F.R.D. 43, 47 (D.

• Mass. 2011).

B t U S Ai li Pil t A P i B fit G C 274



But see U.S. Airline Pilots Assoc. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 274 F.R.D. 28, 31 (D.D.C. 2011) (“Deliberate disclosure constitutes an intentional waiver, at least absent credible evidence that the disclosing party was unaware of the contents of the disclosed material.”).



See also Seyler v. T-Systems N. Am. Inc., 771 F. Supp. 2d 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (finding disclosure of privileged e-mails between plaintiff and sister not intentional when counsel did not know that sister was attorney).

66

F.R.E. Rule 502(a): Fairness



Carpenter v Churchville Greene Homeowner’s Assoc 2011 WL 4711961



Carpenter v. Churchville Greene Homeowner s Assoc., 2011 WL 4711961 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) (no subject matter waiver under 502(a) where disclosed testimony was not “selective or misleading,” thus precluding disclosure of subsequent e-mail).



Bear Republic Brewing Co. v. Central City Brewing Co., 275 F.R.D. 43 (D.

• Mass. 2011) (intentional waiver of material collected by investigator required

disclosure of “circumstances involved with respect to this material.”).



Seyler v. T-Systems N. Am. Inc., 771 F. Supp. 2d 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (finding no subject matter waiver where party disclaimed future use of document).

67

F.R.E. Rule 502(b): Inadvertent Disclosure

I d t t Di l Wh d i F d l di t

(b)

Inadvertent Disclosure - When made in a Federal proceeding or to a Federal office or agency, the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a Federal or State proceeding if:

(1)

the disclosure is inadvertent;

(2)

the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and

(3)

the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error, including (if applicable) following Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B).

68

F.R.E. Rule 502(b): Inadvertent Disclosure (cont’d)

 Test for determining whether disclosure was “inadvertent” is whether

g “the party intended to produce a privileged document or whether the production was a mistake.”

See Sidney I v Focused Retail Prop I LLC 274 F R D 212 216 (N D Ill 2011); Amobi v See Sidney I. v. Focused Retail Prop. I, LLC, 274 F.R.D. 212, 216 (N.D. Ill. 2011); Amobi v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Corr., 262 F.R.D. 45 (D.D.C. 2009). 

“Disclosure is unintentional even if a document is deliberately produced, where the producing party fails to recognize its privileged nature at the time where the producing party fails to recognize its privileged nature at the time

• f production.”

Valentin v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp., 2011 WL 1466122 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see also Datel Holdings Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 2011 WL 866993 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (computer glitch g p , ( ) ( p g truncated documents precluding reviewing lawyers from recognizing privileged nature of e-mails)

69

F.R.E. Rule 502(b): Reasonable Efforts to Prevent and Rectify



Pacific Coast Steel v. Leany, 2011 WL 4704217 (D. Nev. 2011) (production f 3 i il d il t f 2 3 illi d d h t d

• f 3 privileged e-mails out of 2.3 million pages produced where party used

software to search material, conducted multiple reviews, objected to documents at deposition and filed motion within three weeks of deposition); D t l H ldi Ltd Mi ft C 2011 WL 866993 (N D C l 2011)



Datel Holdings, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp., 2011 WL 866993 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“robust measures” involving contract lawyers, quality control team, and privilege team had detailed instructions on how to review material, with court noting that “perfection” not the standard)



Sheet Metal Workers’ Nat’l Pension Fund v. Palladium Equity Ptnrs., LLC, 722 F. Supp. 2d 845 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (party submitted statistics of document review and production and notified adversary following business day after discovering inadvertent disclosure) day after discovering inadvertent disclosure)

70

F R E Rule 502(b): Not Reasonable F.R.E. Rule 502(b): Not Reasonable



Inhalation Plastics, Inc. v. Medex Cardio-Pulmonary, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist Lexis 121830 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 28, 2012) (where defendant claimed inadvertent production

• f 347 emails out of a 7,500-page production but failed to provide an accompanying

i il l d tl d l t d th i il i t d privilege log and apparently delegated the privilege review process to an unnamed third party, court found defendant’s precautions not reasonable and privilege waived)



Thorncreek Apts. III, LLC v. Village of Park Forrest, 2011 WL 3489828 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (mere assertion that attorney spent “countless hours” on review failure to investigate (mere assertion that attorney spent countless hours on review, failure to investigate database pre-production, and review process that identified no privilege documents not reasonable to prevent disclosure; access to database with privileged material for nine months and failure to create privilege log not reasonable to rectify error). M ti St t F M t A t I C 2011 WL 1297819 (S D W V 2011) (f il



Martin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2011 WL 1297819 (S.D.W.V. 2011) (failure to describe process of reviewing documents and failure to object when document used at deposition constitutes waiver under Rule 502(b) but not subject matter waiver under 502(a) because not intentional).



• Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Felman Prods., Inc., 271 F.R.D. 125 (S.D.W.V. 2010) (counsel

failed to test reliability of keyword searches resulting in a large number of disclosed privileged documents and delayed measures to rectify disclosure).

71

F.R.E. Rule 502(d) & (e)

(d) C t lli Eff t f C t O d A F d l t d th t th (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. y p g (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.

72

Protective Effect of F R E Rule 502(d) Orders Protective Effect of F.R.E. Rule 502(d) Orders



Rule 502(d) Order preventing subject matter waiver:

SEC B k f A i N 09 Ci 6829(JSR) 2009 WL 3297493 (S D N Y

 SEC v. Bank of America, No. 09 Civ. 6829(JSR), 2009 WL 3297493 (S.D.N.Y.

2009) (granting stipulated protective order that permitted disclosure and waiver

• f privilege as to certain documents without effecting a broader subject matter

waiver pursuant to Rule 502(a)).



Rule 502(d) Order preventing any waiver:

 Whitaker Chalk Swindle & Sawyer, L.L.P. v. Dart Oil & Gas Corp., 2009 U.S.

• Dist. LEXIS 15901 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (ordering production of privileged documents

pursuant to Rule 502(d) so as to preserve privilege and protection in dispute pursuant to Rule 502(d) so as to preserve privilege and protection in dispute between law firm and former client).



Rule 502(d) Order preventing waiver even without pre-production review:

 Radian Asset Assurance, Inc. v. College of the Christian Bros. of New Mexico,

2010 WL 4928866 (D.N.M. 2010) (issuing 502(d) order preserving privilege as to contents of backup tapes and hard drives produced without review).

73

02( ) S S f F.R.E. Rule 502(d) and Selective Waiver: Statement of Congressional Intent

[T]his subdivision does not provide a basis for a court to enable parties to agree to a selective waiver of the privilege, such as to a federal agency conducting an investigation, while preserving the privilege as against other parties seeking the information. . . . While the benefits of a g p g court order under this subdivision would be equally available in government enforcement actions as in private actions, acquiescence by the disclosing party in use by the federal agency of information disclosed pursuant to such an order would still be treated as under current law for purposes of determining whether the acquiescence in use of the purposes of determining whether the acquiescence in use of the information, as opposed to its mere disclosure, effects a waiver of the

• privilege. The same applies to acquiescence in use by another private

party. 154 Cong. Rec. H7818-19 (Sept. 8, 2008)

74

The Selective Waiver Doctrine

D i d t ll di l f i il d i ti t th



Designed to allow disclosure of privileged communications to the government only, while maintaining the privilege as to all others.



Introduced by Eighth Circuit in Diversified Indus., Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d



Introduced by Eighth Circuit in Diversified Indus., Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1977) (en banc)

 Producing internal report to SEC “in separate and nonpublic” investigation was

“limited waiver” limited waiver

 Court determined “to hold otherwise may have the effect of thwarting the

developing procedure of corporations to employ independent outside counsel to investigate and advise them in order to protect stockholders, potential t kh ld d t ” stockholders and customers.”

75

Selective Waiver: Other Jurisdictions Have Not Followed



D C : Permain Corp v United States 665 F 2d 1214 (D C Cir 1981)



D.C.: Permain Corp. v. United States, 665 F.2d 1214 (D.C. Cir. 1981).



1st Cir.: United States v. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 129 F.3d 681 (1st Cir. 1997).



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



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



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



6th Cir.: In re Columbia/HCA Corp. Billing Practices Litig., 293 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2002).



9th Cir: In re Pacific Pictures Corp., ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 1293534 (9th Cir. April 17, 2012).



10th Cir : In re Quest Comm Int’l Inc 450 F 3d 1179 (10th Cir 2006)



10th Cir.: In re Quest Comm. Int l, Inc., 450 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2006).

76

In-House Counsel and the Attorney-Client Privilege: Protecting Confidential Information in Business Communications Depositions and Litigation Communications, Depositions and Litigation ___________________________

Program Materials Prepared by: g p y

Michael Hayes

Partner, Litigation Department and E-Discovery Group Co-Chair Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 123 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19109 (215) 772-7211 mhayes@mmwr.com

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 77

The Attorney-Client Privilege in the C t S tti Corporate Setting

Brian Martin General Counsel KLA T C KLA-Tencor, Corp. Brian.Martin@kla-tencor.com

Knowledge Gap Knowledge Gap

 The best evidence of this knowledge gap is  The best evidence of this knowledge gap is

recent case law where courts have been forced to remind us of the following fundamental points:

 Conversations are not privileged simply because a

l i i th ti lawyer is in the meetings.

 E-mails are not privileged because a lawyer is copied

• n the e-mail.
• n the e mail.

 Communications are not privileged when a lawyer

serves as a conduit for the communication.

79

Who is the Client? Who is the Client?

 Two principal tests have been used to  Two principal tests have been used to

determine whether corporate communications fell within the attorney- communications fell within the attorney client privilege: (1) Control group test and (2) Subject matter test (2) Subject matter test.

80

The Control Group Test The Control Group Test

 A corporate employee communicating with  A corporate employee communicating with

the company's lawyer has to be a member

• f management with authority to take part
• f management with authority to take part

in decisions on the matter in question for the privilege to apply In re Grand Jury the privilege to apply. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 599 F.2d 1224, 1235 (3rd Cir 1979)

• Cir. 1979).

81

The Control Group Test

 The control group test essentially requires that the

l ith h tt i t b

The Control Group Test

employee with whom an attorney communicates be a member of senior management for the communication to be privileged.

 Management is the “client.”  The control group test has been severely criticized

because: because:

 it has a chilling effect on corporate communications;  it frustrates the very purpose of the privilege by discouraging

subordinate employees from communicating important subordinate employees from communicating important information to corporate counsel;

 it makes it difficult for corporate counsel to properly advise their

clients and to ensure their clients' compliance with the law; and

82

 it yields unpredictable results.

The Subject Matter Test The Subject Matter Test

 The privilege extends to communications  The privilege extends to communications

made by any corporate employee so long as the communication is both made at the as the communication is both made at the direction of his superiors and relates to the performance of the employee's duties the performance of the employee s duties. Diversified Indus., v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir 1978) 596 (8th Cir. 1978).

83

The Upjohn case The Upjohn case

 Facts  Facts

 Independent auditor uncovered potentially illegal

payments by foreign subsidiaries to foreign gov't

• fficials to secure government business.

 General Counsel retains outside counsel and confers

with chairman Initiates investigation by sending with chairman. Initiates investigation by sending questionnaires to management and requesting "full information" concerning any such payments.

 Managers were instructed to treat the process as

highly confidential.

84

The Upjohn case The Upjohn case

 Upjohn Facts continued

Upjo acts co t ued

 The GC and outside counsel interviewed 33

employees. The company disclosed the questionable payments on

 The company disclosed the questionable payments on

the company's Form 8-K and a copy of the Form was submitted to the IRS who began investigations di th t ti l t i li ti f th regarding the potential tax implications of the payments.

 The IRS sought the production of the questionnaires

and the GC's files. Upjohn declined production based upon the attorney-client privilege. The IRS instituted an action seeking enforcement of the IRS summons.

85

Upjohn Upjohn

 Control group test rejected by Supreme Court  Control group test rejected by Supreme Court

 Lower level employees can embroil the corporation in

serous legal difficulties and thus will have relevant information needed by corporate counsel if he/she is to perform his/her mission of counseling the corporation regarding these issues.

• po a o

ga d g u

 Privilege protects employee communications and

thereby enables the attorney to counsel the ti corporation.

86

Upjohn Upjohn

 The Supreme Court's holding:  The Supreme Court s holding:

 Sound legal advice serves the public interest

and full disclosure from the client insures that and full disclosure from the client insures that the lawyer is fully informed.

87

The Upjohn Factors The Upjohn Factors

 The Supreme Court set down five factors to  The Supreme Court set down five factors to

guide courts in determining the validity of attorney-client privilege claims for communications between legal counsel and lower-echelon corporate employees:

1.The information is necessary to supply the basis for legal advice to the corporation or was ordered to be communicated by superior officers; y p ; 2.The information was not available from "control group" management;

88

The Upjohn Factors ( ) (continued)

• 3. The communications concerned matters
• 3. The communications concerned matters

within the scope of the employees' duties;

• 4. The employees were aware that they were
• 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 f d l confidential.

89

The Upjohn Factors ( ) (continued)

 When each of these elements is met, a lower-  When each of these elements is met, a lower

echelon employee is considered a client under the attorney-client privilege, and the employee's communications with corporate counsel are

• privileged. Bruce v. Christian, 113 F.R.D. 554,

560 (S D N Y 1986) ( i il t d t 560 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (privilege extends to employee communications on matters within the scope of their employment and when the scope of their employment and when the employee is being questioned in confidence in

• rder for an employer to obtain legal advice).

90

p y g )

Clarify the Relationship Clarify the Relationship

 Some courts place the burden on the corporate counsel

p p to clarify the nature of the relationship with the

• employee. In those jurisdictions, if a lawyer fails to

clarify that she is solely representing the organization, y y p g g , then the employee can assert the privilege if the employee reasonably believed that the lawyer represented the employee. United States v. Hart, No. p p y ,

• Crim. A. 92-219, 1992 WL 348425 (E.D. La. Nov. 16,

1992) (employees reasonably believed that corporate counsel was representing them individually and therefore p g y could invoke privilege).

91

Confidential C i ti Communications

"Confidential Communications" Confidential Communications

 To remain privileged a communication must be

• e

a p eged a co u cat o ust be made in confidence and kept confidential. The test is (1) whether the communicator, at the time the communication was made intended for time the communication was made, intended for the information to remain secret from non- privileged persons, and (2) whether the parties p g p , ( ) p involved maintained the secrecy of the

• communication. See Haines v. Liggett Group,

Inc 975 F 2d 81 (3d Cir 1992) (privilege Inc., 975 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1992) (privilege protects verbal and written communications conveyed in confidence for purpose of legal

93

advice).

Confidential Communications Confidential Communications

 For organizational clients the courts have  For organizational clients, the courts have

permitted "need-to-know" agents to have access to privileged documents without access to privileged documents without destroying confidentiality and relinquishing the privilege See Coastal relinquishing the privilege. See Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy 617 F 2d 854 863 (D C Cir Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 863 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Diversified Indus., Inc. v. Meredith 572 F 2d 596 (8th Cir 1977)

94

Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1977).

Confidential Communications Confidential Communications

 The group of "need-to-know" agents is  The group of need to know agents is

comprised of employees of the

• rganization who reasonably need to

g y know of the communication in order to act in the interest of the corporation. C t l St t G C D t t Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department

• f Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 863 (D.C. Cir.

1980) (applying a "need to know" test to 1980) (applying a need-to-know test to find that indiscriminate circulation of a memorandum constituted disclosure)

95

memorandum constituted disclosure).

Confidential Communications Confidential Communications



Exxon and the "Broome Letter"

• a d t e
• e

ette



In-house counsel rendered legal opinion on whether Exxon was required to make royalty h f Al b payments to the state of Alabama.

 Memo was circulated to senior management  Counsel was not involved with mgmt decision  Counsel was not involved with mgmt. decision



State sues and lower court orders production of Broome Letter.

 Content and circulation list  Result: $87m direct damages; $3.42b punitive

damages

96

damages

Confidential Communications Confidential Communications

 Exxon and the "Broome Letter"  Exxon and the Broome Letter

(continued)

 Alabama Supreme Court reverses  Alabama Supreme Court reverses

 Content: non-confidential facts contained in letter

but predominant purpose was a legal opinion p p p g p letter.

 Circulation: lawyer testified why each person

needed to review the memo and "no mere needed to review the memo and "no mere spectators or 'fyi' recipients."

97

L l Ad i Legal Advice

"Legal Advice" Legal Advice

 For the privilege to apply the  For the privilege to apply, the

communication must be made for the purpose of securing legal advice or purpose of securing legal advice or

• assistance. See In re Six Grand Jury

Witnesses 979 F 2d 939 (2d Cir 1992) Witnesses, 979 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1992) (privilege protects communications made in confidence to lawyer to obtain legal in confidence to lawyer to obtain legal counsel).

99

"Legal Advice" Legal Advice

 Business Advice is excluded  Business Advice is excluded

 A communication is not privileged simply

because it is made by or to a person who because it is made by or to a person who happens to be an attorney.

 When the attorney-client privilege is invoked  When the attorney client privilege is invoked

with regard to communications with in-house counsel, the court will look particularly closely at whether the counsel was providing business advice, rather than legal advice.

100

Mixed Advice Mixed Advice

 Cases of Mixed Purpose: For the privilege to

Cases o ed u pose

• t e p

ege to apply in such cases, the communication between client and lawyer must be primarily for the purpose of providing legal assistance and not for purpose of providing legal assistance and not for another purpose. As long as the client's purpose was to gain some advantage from the lawyer's g g y legal skills and training, the services will be considered legal in nature, despite the fact the client may also get other benefits such as client may also get other benefits such as business advice or friendship. United States v. Bornstein, 977 F.2d 112 (4th Cir. 1992).

101

Mixed Advice Mixed Advice

 But see: Kramer v. Raymond Corp., No. 90-

y p , 5026, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7418 at * 3-4 (E.D.

• Pa. May 29, 1992). ( "The attorney-client

privilege is construed narrowly. This is privilege is construed narrowly. This is especially so when a corporate entity seeks to invoke the privilege to protect communications to in-house counsel. Because in-house counsel to in house counsel. Because in house counsel may play a dual role of legal advisor and business advisor, the privilege will apply only if the communication in question was made for the the communication in question was made for the express purpose of securing legal not business advice." ).

102

Preventative Measures

 Require written request for legal advice on any

sensitive measures

 Keep privileged communications confidential  Counsel should direct investigations

 Use of “Upjohn letters”

 Where experts are used to assist counsel, there

must be a contemporaneous record of the i il d t f th t privileged nature of the engagement

 In-house counsel should obtain information from

the most senior source available

103

the most senior source available

Pre entati e Meas res Preventative Measures

 Assertion of privilege must be particularized  Assertion of privilege must be particularized  Resist indiscriminate use of privilege label

Use legal titles in correspondence

 Use legal titles in correspondence  Assume non-lawyers neither understand nor

respect the privilege respect the privilege

 Documents setting forth legal advice should

relate only to legal subjects relate only to legal subjects

 Control distribution  Develop procedures to protect confidentiality

104

 Develop procedures to protect confidentiality

5 Strategies for Managing the Privilege

1.

Call your team to action. y



Too many in-house lawyers are unacceptably

• perating under their law-school-vintage

understanding of the privilege. g g



Ask one of your team members to take responsibility for refreshing the group on the law.



One of your law firms would be happy to take responsibility f thi t i i for this training.



Create a “privileged or not” game



Jenner and Block publishes a handy compendium of cases relating to the privilege relating to the privilege. www.jenner.com/news/news_item.asp?id= 000013872224 .

105

5 Strategies for Managing the Privilege

2

Educate your business teams

2.

Educate your business teams



Watch your language; use of the term

“client”

client



One approach to educating the business teams is to publish a brief white paper teams is to publish a brief white paper explaining the privilege to non-lawyers. http://www.calstate.edu/gc/Docs/AttorneyCl ientPrivilege.pdf

106

5 Strategies for Managing the Privilege

3

Develop and implement a standard

3.

Develop and implement a standard internal investigation process.



The effectiveness of an internal investigation



The effectiveness of an internal investigation is dependent upon the actions and decisions made in the first 48 hours. ade t e st 8

• u s

107

5 Strategies for Managing the Privilege

4

Internalize the lessons of Coastal States

4.

Internalize the lessons of Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F 2d 854 (D C Cir 1980) and Exxon v F.2d 854 (D.C Cir. 1980) and Exxon v. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 859 So 2d 1096 1100 (Ala Resources 859 So. 2d 1096, 1100 (Ala. 2002).

108

5 Strategies for Managing the Privilege

5

Give Courts a break!

5.

Give Courts a break!

109