United States: D.C. Circuit Upholds Attorney-Client Privilege In Internal Compliance Investigation

Last Updated: September 10 2014
Article by Danielle Pelot and Emily Harlan

D.C. Circuit Court's decision clarifies that an attorney-client communication is protected as long as "one of the significant purposes" of the communication is obtaining or providing legal advice

Government contractors and other companies doing business in regulated industries are exhaling after the D.C. Circuit recently overturned a lower court order compelling the production of documents created in the course of an internal investigation into fraud allegations. On June 27, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that defense contractor Kellogg Brown & Root ("KBR") does not have to produce reports and other materials that it created in the course of investigating whether its subcontractor engaged in cost inflation and bribery while performing work in Iraq. In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., et al. , No. 14-5055 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2014).

The D.C. Circuit Court's decision vacated a March 6, 2014 order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that had caused, in the Circuit Court's words, "substantial uncertainty about the scope of the attorney-client privilege in the business setting." The D.C. District Court had ruled that KBR could not withhold materials created as part of an internal business conduct investigation under either the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. The lower court characterized KBR's investigation as a "routine corporate, and apparently ongoing, compliance investigation required by regulatory law and corporate policy" that involved non-attorney interviewers, and contrasted it with the internal investigation conducted at the direction of the legal department and outside counsel in the seminal case addressing corporate attorney-client privilege, Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981). The lower court concluded that KBR's investigation would have been conducted regardless of whether any legal advice was sought and that it therefore did not pass what the court viewed as the relevant "but for" test for application of the privilege. The opinion was sharply criticized by business and trade organizations.

In vacating the order, the D.C. Circuit Court clarified the meaning of the applicable "primary purpose" test, holding that the investigative materials at issue were cloaked in the privilege because a "significant purpose" of the investigation was to obtain or provide legal advice, even if it was not the only purpose.

In addition to articulating a clearer and more practical explanation of the relevant test, the D.C. Circuit's decision bears useful guidance for the increasing number of businesses that operate in regulated industries and perform internal investigations as part of corporate compliance programs.

Factual and legal background

The events leading to this decision began in 2005, when Harry Barko, a former KBR subcontract administrator, filed a False Claims Act suit under seal against KBR and related entities. Barko's suit alleges various illegal actions by KBR and a subcontractor, including overbilling and kickbacks, relating to the performance of government contracts for laundry facilities during wartime operations in Iraq. The government declined to intervene in Barko's suit.

Barko's complaint was unsealed and the litigation proceeded until late 2013, when a discovery dispute arose over certain investigative materials in KBR's possession relating to the subject matter of Barko's suit. According to the lower court, KBR had conducted an internal investigation during 2004–2006 pursuant to its Code of Business Conduct ("COBC"), a system of internal controls implementing Department of Defense contracting requirements. The COBC includes mechanisms for employees to report tips to the company and for the company to act on them with internal and/or external audits and reporting to appropriate officials. The Director of the COBC is a lawyer, and KBR lawyers are involved in COBC investigations, but the front-line investigators are not typically lawyers.

KBR withheld documents relating to the COBC investigation on the basis of attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. Barko moved to compel. After conducting an in camera review of COBC investigation reports—some content of which is described in the March 6, 2014 opinion—the D.C. District Court (Judge James S. Gwin, sitting by designation) held that COBC investigations "resulted from the Defendants' need to comply with government regulations" and were pursued as part of KBR's regulatory compliance efforts, not for the purpose of assisting KBR in obtaining legal advice. It concluded that KBR would have conducted the COBC investigation even absent any solicitation of legal advice and, therefore, materials created in connection with the investigation were not protected by the attorney-client privilege.

The D.C. District Court also swiftly dismissed KBR's claims of protection under the work-product doctrine, finding that the reports were not prepared or obtained by lawyers in anticipation of litigation. Again, the lower court highlighted that the investigative documents were made by non-attorneys between 2004 and 2006 because government regulations required KBR to investigate reports of potential fraud in the ordinary course of business, not in anticipation of Barko's complaint, which was unsealed in 2009.

KBR sought an interlocutory appeal. Judge Gwin denied the request and ordered the documents produced to Barko immediately. KBR then sought a writ of mandamus from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. KBR's petition to the Circuit Court turned on whether the lower court's ruling constituted an error that justified mandamus.

D.C. Circuit Court announces "significant purpose" clarification to "primary purpose" test

In an opinion authored by Judge Brett Kavanaugh on behalf of the three-judge panel (Griffith, Kavanaugh, and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges) that heard oral argument on May 7, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court's finding on privilege was "legally erroneous" and granted mandamus as appropriate under the circumstances.

After a review of Upjohn principles, the D.C. Circuit described KBR's privilege assertion as "materially indistinguishable" from the Upjohn scenario. The D.C. Circuit determined that none of the purported distinctions drawn by the lower court regarding outside counsel involvement, non-attorney interviewers, and notice to employees of a legal purpose formed a basis for denying KBR's privilege claims.

The D.C. Circuit explained that the lower court erred in layering a "but for" analysis onto the "primary purpose" test. While the "primary purpose" test is proper and many courts use it in such discovery disputes, it does not include the "but for" reasoning by which the lower court held that the privilege cannot apply if there is any other purpose besides a legal purpose for a lawyer-client communication. The D.C. Circuit rejected the use of a "but for" test as inconsistent with longstanding principles of attorney-client privilege law.

The D.C. Circuit then clarified the "primary purpose" test, stating: "Sensibly and properly applied, the test boils down to whether obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes of the attorney-client communication."

A company may have more than one significant reason for conducting an investigation—including being required to do so by regulation or corporate compliance policy—without spoiling attorney-client privilege. So long as one of those significant purposes is obtaining or providing legal advice and the communications in the course of that investigation otherwise meet the characteristics of attorney-client privileged material, the privilege can apply.

Notably, the D.C. Circuit recognized that the lower court's error was sufficiently severe and with "potentially far-reaching consequences" such that the totality of the circumstances merited the extraordinary relief of mandamus. In a nod to industry amici, the D.C. Circuit acknowledged the drastic implications that the lower court's privilege interpretation would have on corporate compliance efforts in numerous settings:

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 turn, businesses would be less likely to disclose facts to their attorneys and to seek legal advice....


...Because defense contractors are subject to regulatory requirements of the sort cited by the District Court, the logic of the ruling would seemingly prevent any defense contractor from invoking the attorney-client privilege to protect internal investigations undertaken as a part of a mandatory compliance program. See 48 C.F.R. §52.203-13 (2010). And because a variety of other federal laws require similar internal controls or compliance programs, many other companies likewise would not be able to assert the privilege to protect the records of their internal investigations.

The D.C. Circuit acknowledged that protecting the documents from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client privilege may result in "potentially critical evidence [being] withheld from the factfinder." But, the Court said, "the privilege carries costs." For the privilege to be meaningful, the discovery of facts that exist only in privileged communications must sometimes cede to the purpose of the privilege—i.e., the promotion of unfettered communication between a lawyer and his client.

Lawyers for Barko have stated that they will seek review of the panel's decision by the full circuit court.

Guidance for companies conducting multi-purpose investigations

In considering the potential impact of the lower court's ruling, Judge Kavanaugh remarked that "prudent counsel monitor court decisions closely and adapt their practices in response."

The D.C. Circuit's review of KBR's COBC program and the classic Upjohn investigation are instructive for companies conducting internal investigations, particularly those in regulated industries for which healthy compliance programs and self-disclosure practices have become expected or required business measures. Examples include not just defense industry government contractors like KBR, but health care providers subject to compliance program requirements for Medicare enrollment under new Affordable Care Act provisions; public companies covered by the Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank Acts; manufacturers and suppliers in energy, environmental, and life sciences fields who conduct business internationally; and organizations operating under a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) or other government settlement terms.

As the D.C. Circuit reiterated, in the simplest terms, the privilege applies to a confidential communication between attorney and client if that communication was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice to the client. But applying this definition in the context of a multi-purpose investigation can be anything but simple. Companies assessing the scope of the privilege in their internal investigations should take notice of key elements:

Legal vs. business advice: While the facilitation of legal advice need not be the sole purpose of an internal investigation, it must still be a purpose, and a "significant" one, for the attorney-client privilege to apply. Legal advice sought or received from an attorney acting in a legal capacity is distinct from business advice, even when an attorney is involved in the delivery of such business advice.

Communications, not facts: The D.C. Circuit Court stressed that the attorney-client privilege only protects against the disclosure of privileged communications. It does not prohibit the discovery of the underlying facts contained in those communications if they can be obtained from non-privileged sources.

Attorney involvement: The D.C. Circuit's decision demonstrates that involving the company's attorneys at an appropriate stage of the investigation is critical. Key to the Court's finding that the privilege protected the investigative reports from disclosure in Barko was the role of KBR's legal department in the COBC investigation. The Court noted throughout its opinion that the investigation was conducted "at the direction of" and "under the auspices of" the legal department. Indeed, the Director of KBR's COBC is a lawyer, and other KBR attorneys were involved in the COBC investigation as well, including for the purpose of directing the non-attorney investigators. Moreover, KBR employees interviewed in connection with the investigation were told in writing not to discuss the interview without "specific advance authorization" from KBR's General Counsel. KBR's filings also asserted that the investigators themselves had to have an attorney's permission to disseminate information about the investigation.

Confidentiality: Only confidential communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Though the D.C. Circuit explained that KBR did not have to recite "magic words" to employees about the legal purpose of the investigation for the privilege to apply, both courts described that KBR employees signed confidentiality agreements in connection with their interviews. Similar investigative process considerations related to confidentiality can include:

  • whether interviewees are asked to keep communications confidential;
  • whether investigators and employees make efforts to separate, designate, or otherwise protect privileged communications as distinct from general business discussions; and
  • whether investigative information is gathered in anticipation of self-reporting or other possible intentional disclosure of underlying facts to third parties.

The Barko episode serves as a reminder of these hallmarks of the attorney-client privilege analysis and highlights that companies should not take for granted fundamental principles of privilege when conducting internal investigations.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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.

In association with
Related Video
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
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

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