United States: Upjohn Upheld: D.C. Circuit Re-Affirms Privilege Protections For Multi-Purpose Internal Investigations

In one of the most important decisions of the year for corporate legal departments, on June 27, the D.C. Circuit held that a company's internal investigation documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege where "one of the significant purposes" of the investigation was "to obtain or provide legal advice."1 The issue was before the D.C. Circuit on Kellogg Brown & Root's ("KBR") petition for a writ of mandamus seeking review of a surprising decision in which the District Court had ordered KBR to produce final reports documenting its prior internal investigations. While corporate legal departments breathe a collective sigh of relief, this case underscores the need to structure internal investigations thoughtfully in order to maximize attorney-client privilege protection.


In 2005, Harry Barko, who worked for KBR, filed a whistleblower complaint under seal pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. The complaint alleged that KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, defrauded the federal government by inflating costs and accepting kickbacks while performing reconstruction contracts in Iraq. The complaint remained under seal until 2009.

In the meantime, KBR's in-house attorneys and compliance team received a tip from an employee regarding alleged violations of the company's Code of Business Conduct arising from the company's wartime government contracts, including the contract at issue in Barko's qui tam complaint. Several internal investigations were conducted at the direction of KBR's legal department.

After Barko's qui tam complaint was unsealed and discovery in the case commenced, Barko sought production of the reports that summarized the findings of KBR's internal investigations. In response, KBR asserted that the reports were protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine because the investigations had been conducted for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and in anticipation of litigation. Barko then filed a motion to compel production of the reports. Notably, Barko did not argue that KBR waived the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. Rather, the sole basis for Barko's motion to compel was that the privilege and doctrine never attached to the reports in the first instance.


In separate suits pending before other courts, KBR succeeded in establishing that the reports were protected from discovery under the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. It thus came as a surprise when the District Court, after reviewing the reports in camera, determined that the privilege and doctrine did not apply.

The District Court found that KBR's internal investigations were "undertaken pursuant to regulatory law and corporate policy rather than for the purpose of obtaining legal advice" or in anticipation of litigation. The District Court explained that KBR's Code of Business Conduct merely implemented Department of Defense regulations that require all of its government contractors to investigate certain "improper conduct." As a consequence, the District Court concluded that KBR had not shown that "the communication would not have been made 'but for' the fact that legal advice was sought," and would have been made even if legal advice had not been sought.2

Likewise, the District Court found that the attorney work product doctrine did not apply to the reports because the investigation was conducted during the ordinary course of business, as required by regulatory law and the company's Code of Business Conduct, and not in anticipation of litigation. The District Court also noted that the investigations were conducted by KBR several years before Barko's qui tam complaint was unsealed. This fact, according to the District Court, "further support[ed] the conclusion that the investigation was not conducted 'in anticipation of litigation.'"

In so holding, the District Court distinguished KBR's investigation from the privileged investigation at issue in the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981). There, the Supreme Court held that the attorney-client privilege applies to corporations, including documents created during an internal investigation, where the investigation was conducted by the company's General Counsel after conferring with outside counsel, and the witness interviews were conducted by attorneys.3

In contrast to that investigation, the District Court pointed out that outside counsel played no role whatsoever in KBR's investigation, many of the interviews were conducted by non-attorneys, and the interviewees were never informed that a purpose of the interviews was to assist KBR in obtaining legal advice.

The District Court's decision had immediate ripple effects throughout the legal and compliance communities, as it caused companies to question whether having strong compliance policies that require allegations to be investigated somehow put the attorney-client privilege protection at risk, and whether being good corporate citizens by investigating and remediating allegations of fraud would leave them vulnerable to public disclosure of their efforts.


KBR filed a petition for a writ of mandamus—a "drastic and extraordinary" remedy "reserved for really extraordinary causes"—with the D.C. Circuit. The Chamber of Commerce, its constituents, and various trade associations filed an amicus brief in support of KBR, emphasizing the broad implications of the District Court's decision. An engaged three-judge panel—comprised of Judges Griffith, Kavanaugh and Srinvasan—heard oral argument on May 7, 2014.

The D.C. Circuit rendered its much-anticipated decision on June 27, 2014. In an opinion authored by Judge Kavanaugh, the panel unanimously found that the District Court's ruling was legally erroneous and that the error justified granting the extraordinary relief of mandamus. The D.C. Circuit thus vacated the District Court's document production order.

D.C. Circuit Rejects the District Court's "But-For" Approach to the "Primary Purpose" Test for Determining the Applicability of Attorney-Client Privilege.

To determine if a communication is subject to the attorney-client privilege, courts typically assess whether a "primary purpose" of the communication was to obtain or provide legal advice. In the KBR case, the District Court found that the "primary" purpose of a communication is to obtain or provide legal advice only if the communication would not have been made "but for" the fact that legal advice was sought. The D.C. Circuit rejected the District Court's "but-for" approach because it is "inherently impossible" and "not correct" for "a court to try to find the one primary purpose in cases where a given communication plainly has multiple purposes." The primary purpose test "cannot and does not draw a rigid distinction between a legal purpose on the one hand and a business purpose on the other."

Embracing the standard articulated in 1 Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 72, Reporter's Note, at 554 (2000), the D.C. Circuit explained that the correct test is whether "obtaining or providing legal advice [was] a primary purpose of the communication, meaning one of the significant purposes of the communication." Therefore, the privilege applies so long as "one of the significant purposes of the internal investigation was to obtain or provide legal advice." Importantly, the privilege applies regardless of whether the investigation was conducted pursuant to a statutory or regulatory requirement, or a company policy, because obtaining or providing legal advice need not be the "sole" purpose of the investigation. Rather, it need only be a "significant" purpose of the investigation.

D.C. Circuit Finds that KBR's Investigation Was "Materially Indistinguishable" from the Privileged Investigation at Issue in Upjohn.

In vacating the District Court's discovery order, the D.C. Circuit found that, as in Upjohn, KBR initiated the internal investigation to gather facts and ensure compliance with the law after being informed of alleged misconduct. In addition, the D.C. Circuit noted that KBR's investigation was conducted under the auspices of KBR's in-house legal department acting in its legal capacity. These facts alone, from the D.C. Circuit's perspective, brought KBR's investigation within the ambit of the Supreme Court's ruling in Upjohn.

The D.C. Circuit expressly rejected the three distinctions identified by the District Court as insufficient to take the case "out from under Upjohn's umbrella." First, the D.C. Circuit explained that "Upjohn does not hold or imply that the involvement of outside counsel is a necessary predicate for the privilege to apply." Second, even though many of the interviews were conducted by non-attorneys, the investigation was conducted "at the direction" of the attorneys in KBR's Law Department. Third, the D.C. Circuit explained that Upjohn does not require a company to use "magic words" in order to gain the benefit of the privilege for its internal investigation. As in Upjohn, KBR's employees "knew that the company's legal department was conducting an investigation of a sensitive nature and that the information they disclosed would be protected."

D.C. Circuit Finds Mandamus Relief Is Warranted

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the D.C. Circuit's decision is in the Court's acknowledgement of the significance of this decision for the business community at large. Specifically, the D.C. Circuit observed that "the District Court's novel approach would eradicate the attorney-client privilege for internal investigations conducted by businesses that are required by law to maintain compliance programs, which is now the case in a significant swath of American industry." In addition to investigations conducted by government contractors, the D.C. Circuit's opinion refers to investigations conducted by public companies pursuant to the SEC's internal control requirements as another broad category of investigations that would lose privilege protections under the erroneous "logic" of the District Court's ruling. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit concluded that "the District Court's decision would disable most public companies from undertaking confidential internal investigations."

The D.C. Circuit also correctly recognized that, were it to uphold the District Court's decision, "businesses would be less likely to disclose facts to their attorneys and to seek legal advice, which would 'limit the valuable efforts of corporate counsel to ensure their client's compliance with the law.'" Finally, the D.C. Circuit agreed with the amicus brief, which underscored the level of concern in the business community about the District Court's decision and the fact that the District Court's approach could "work a sea change in the well-settled rules governing internal corporate investigations."

For these compelling reasons, the D.C. Circuit granted KBR the extraordinary relief of mandamus. In so doing, the Court did not separately address KBR's assertion of the attorney work product doctrine.


The D.C. Circuit's decision resolves the uncertainty created by the District Court's decision. That said, the D.C. Circuit's decision reminds us of the importance of conducting internal investigations in a way to ensure the privilege applies. For example, even where non-attorneys conduct interviews in an investigation, it is advisable to document and convey to interviewees that the interviews are being conducted at the express direction of legal counsel—whether internal or external. Likewise, to maximize privilege protection, attorneys should direct the overall investigation by making the critical decisions concerning the subject matter to be investigated and the scope of the investigation. Attorneys should also direct the investigation process, including decisions regarding the documents to be reviewed, the witnesses to be interviewed, and the specific issues to be decided. Any written record of the investigation should also leave no doubt that a "significant purpose" of the investigation was to obtain legal advice.

Ultimately, the considerations in conducting internal investigations frequently involve balancing the need to review allegations quickly, efficiently, and thoroughly, with the desire to ensure privilege protection. In this balancing, considering the importance of ensuring privilege protection at the outset provides corporate legal departments the opportunity to think through the appropriate approach in advance, and to be best positioned to establish that a review was, in fact, conducted at the direction of attorneys, and that a significant purpose of the investigation was to obtain or provide legal advice.


1 In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., No. 14-5055, slip op. at 10 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2014).

2 United States ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co., No. 05-cv-1276, 2014 WL 1016784, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2014) (quoting United States v. ISS Marine Services, Inc., 905 F. Supp. 2d 121, 128 (D.D.C. 2012).

3 Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 386-87, 394-95 (1981).

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Stacey Sprenkel
Julie A. Nicholson
Pablo A. Nichols
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions