LitigationDiscovery
Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product for Businesses: Upjohn, In-House Counsel, and the Common Interest
Privilege is the only evidentiary protection a company can lose through carelessness on an ordinary Tuesday and never get back. This article explains the two distinct doctrines that businesses rely on and constantly conflate: the attorney-client privilege, which protects confidential communications for the purpose of legal advice, and the work product doctrine, which protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. It covers who holds the corporate privilege and who may waive it, the control group and subject matter tests resolved by Upjohn v. United States, the special problems of in-house counsel who wear business and legal hats, and the primary purpose and significant purpose tests for dual-purpose communications after In re Kellogg Brown and Root. It works through work product under Rule 26(b)(3), the difference between ordinary and opinion work product, and the substantial need exception. It then addresses waiver in operational terms: Federal Rule of Evidence 502, clawback agreements and Rule 502(d) orders, subject matter waiver, the at-issue and advice-of-counsel waivers, and disclosure to auditors, insurers, and the government. Sections on the crime-fraud exception, the common interest doctrine, internal investigations, and privilege logs follow, with checklists, a worked example, an FAQ, and related reading.