For years, the ABA worked closely with a broad coalition of business and legal groups—ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the American Civil Liberties Union—and with many state and local bar associations in an effort to reverse the Justice Department and other federal agency privilege waiver policies referenced above. The Senate and House Judiciary Committees held four separate hearings on this issue in 2006 and 2007, and the ABA and the coalition testified or submitted written statements at each hearing. The ABA also sent letters to the Justice Department (May 2006), U.S. Sentencing Commission (March 2006), Commodity Futures Trading Commission (July 2006), Department of Housing and Urban Development (December 2006 and February 2011), Securities and Exchange Commission (February 2007), General Services Administration/FAR Councils (June 2008), Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) (November 2008), and other agencies urging them to reverse or modify their respective privilege waiver policies.
After considering the concerns raised by congressional leaders, former Justice Department officials, and many in the legal and business communities, the Sentencing Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission voted to reverse their privilege waiver policies in April 2006 and March 2007, respectively. In addition, the Justice Department replaced the Holder, Thompson, and McNulty Memoranda with the so-called "Filip Memorandum" and new revised corporate charging guidelines in August 2008, which stated that while prosecutors may require companies to disclose all relevant facts during investigations in return for cooperation credit, they can no longer require or even ask companies to waive their attorney-client privilege or work product protections or to forego paying their employees’ legal fees. Similarly, the GSA/FAR Councils and Treasury Department’s OFAC issued final rules in November 2008 and November 2009, respectively, clarifying that parties will not be penalized for declining to produce privileged information. The SEC also issued a series of revised Enforcement Manuals, most recently on October 28, 2016, which instruct agency staff not to request waiver of the privilege without the prior approval of the Director or Deputy Director of the Bureau’s Enforcement Division. However, while the revised SEC manual is a significant improvement over the agency’s original privilege waiver policy outlined in the 2001 Seaboard Report, it still does not provide adequate protection for the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.
In addition to its efforts to reform these federal agencies’ privilege waiver policies, the ABA submitted comments to the CFPB in April 2012 directly challenging the Bureau’s claims that it had the legal authority to force banks and non-bank supervised entities to provide privileged documents and information during examinations and other regulatory processes. However, because many financial institutions and other supervised entities choose to provide all requested documents, both privileged and nonprivileged, to federal banking regulators as part of the supervisory process, the ABA also worked closely with 13 state and local bar associations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to enact legislation during the 112th Congress designed to protect the privileged status of all such documents. H.R. 4014, sponsored by Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI), and S. 2099, sponsored by Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD), both provided that when banks or other supervised entities produce privileged information to the CFPB, the privilege would not waived as to any third parties. In February 2012, the ABA sent a letter to House leaders endorsing H.R. 4014, and a similar letter to Senate leaders endorsing S. 2099. Congress subsequently passed the legislation in December 2012, and President Obama signed it into law as P.L 112-215.
In October 2016, the ABA submitted additional comments to the CFPB opposing provisions in the Bureau’s proposed rule on Disclosure of Records and Information that would authorize it to share privileged information it receives from supervised and regulated entities with many different types of foreign, state, and other governmental agencies (including state bars). The ABA comment letter urged the CFPB to modify the rule to clarify that it cannot share such information with any other non-federal agency, as such sharing could threaten the privileged status of the information.
Congress also considered, but so far has declined to enact, comprehensive legislation known as the “Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act” (ACPPA) that would prohibit all federal agencies (except bank regulators) from pressuring companies and other organizations to waive their attorney-client privilege, work product, or employee legal protections during investigations. H.R. 3013, sponsored by Representatives John Conyers (D-MI), Bobby Scott (D-VA), and Lamar Smith (R-TX) during the 110th Congress, was approved overwhelmingly by the House in November 2007, but the Senate companion bill, S. 3217, failed to receive a vote. Similar legislation (S. 445 and H.R. 4326) was subsequently introduced during the 111th Congress, but there was no further action on either bill. While the ABA views the revised Justice Department policy and the other revised federal agency policies described above to be substantial improvements over the agencies’ previous waiver policies, the ABA continues to support comprehensive legislation like the ACPPA—or a similar Presidential executive order applying these reforms to all federal agencies—as the best means to permanently protect the privilege and the work product doctrine from government-coerced waiver.
In addition to opposing these and other federal agency policies that compel companies to waive the privilege or to otherwise produce privileged materials, the ABA has also urged other federal agencies to strengthen their existing privilege protection policies. For example, in response to press allegations in February 2012 that confidential communications between a U.S. law firm and its overseas client were intercepted by a foreign intelligence agency and shared with the National Security Agency (NSA) and other federal agencies, the ABA sent a letter to, and later met with, senior representatives of those agencies to ensure that the proper policies and procedures are in place to preserve fundamental attorney-client privilege protections for all clients. In its response letter, the NSA expressed its commitment to protect the attorney-client privilege and explained its various policies and procedures designed to minimize the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of privileged information.
The ABA also submitted a comment letter to the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) in June 2014 expressing concerns over its proposal to limit the scope of attorney-client privilege protections in the new Grant Assurances form that grantees would be required to follow starting in FY 2015 to just those protections covered by the “federal attorney-client privilege.” LSC later decided not to adopt the proposed language, and in its July 2, 2014 announcement explaining its decision, the agency specifically referenced the ABA’s written comments as a key factor.
In May 2017, the ABA also sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) expressing concerns over standards that permit U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to search and review the content of lawyers’ laptop computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices at U.S. border crossings without any showing of reasonable suspicion. The ABA also asked DHS to modify and clarify the relevant CBP and ICE policies to state that when a lawyer is traveling across the border with an electronic device containing privileged or confidential electronic documents, those documents cannot be read, duplicated, seized or shared unless the officer first obtains a subpoena based on reasonable suspicion or a warrant supported by probable cause.
In addition to seeking these changes in the CBP and ICE directives governing border searches of electronic devices, the ABA also continues to engage in a constructive dialogue with NSA and other intelligence and law enforcement agencies in an effort to strengthen their existing “minimization” policies to better protect the privileged status of confidential material obtained through governmental surveillance. In addition, the ABA continues to engage the CFPB, LSC, Treasury Department, and other agencies to ensure that their policies and practices do not erode or undermine the privilege or parties’ fundamental rights to effective counsel.