United States: Preserving Attorney-Client Privilege In Internal Investigations: Risks And Challenges Remain After D.C. Circuit’s High-Profile Decision In "Barko"

In today's increasingly heightened enforcement environment, internal investigations have become more prevalent, as companies seek to prevent and mitigate improper conduct. One of the most difficult tasks in conducting internal investigations is preserving the attorney-client privilege. A failure to preserve the privilege can have devastating consequences.

The recent trial court and appellate decisions in In re: Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., illustrate the challenges companies face in maintaining privilege in an internal investigation. The much-discussed district court and subsequent D.C. Circuit opinions1 in that case addressed a discovery dispute between the parties in a qui tam False Claims Act case, as to whether the defendant, Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. ("KBR"), should be compelled to produce responsive documents relating to investigations that the company conducted under its Code of Business Conduct ("COBC"). KBR refused to produce otherwise responsive COBC reports on the basis of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product.

After an in camera review, and noting on the record that the COBC reports were "eye openers" that contradicted some factual statements that KBR claimed in its summary judgment motion were undisputed, the trial court held that the COBC reports were not privileged and ordered KBR to produce the reports.2 The trial court reasoned that the COBC reports were not privileged because of the way KBR conducted the investigation, which included: (1) the absence of outside counsel in interviews, (2) KBR's reliance on non-attorneys to conduct employee interviews, (3) KBR's failure to advise employees in interviews that the purpose of the interview was to help the company obtain legal advice, and (4) requiring employees to sign confidentiality agreements that did not expressly state that the purpose of the investigation was to obtain legal advice. Fifth and finally, the district court also held that the "primary purpose" of KBR's investigation was not to obtain legal advice, but to comply with its obligations under its contract with the Department of Defense to "facilitate timely discovery and disclosure of improper conduct in connection with Government contracts."

On June 27, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel reversed the district court,3 finding that:

  1. Even though outside counsel was not present for interviews of employees, the involvement of outside counsel was not "a necessary predicate for the privilege to apply";
  2. Because the investigation was conducted "at the direction of the attorneys in KBR's Law Department," KBR employees were sufficiently on notice that the investigation was for obtaining or providing legal advice, even though many of the interviews had been conducted by non-attorneys;
  3. Even though employees interviewed had not been expressly informed that the purpose of the interview was to help the company obtain legal advice, it was sufficient that employees had been instructed "not to discuss their interviews 'without the specific advance authorization of KBR General Counsel'";
  4. Even though the confidentiality agreements signed by employees did not expressly state that the purpose of the investigation was to obtain legal advice, KBR 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"; and
  5. Even if KBR undertook the investigation to comply with a contractual requirement, obtaining or providing legal advice need not be the sole purpose of an internal investigation.

The court found that there could be "no serious dispute" that obtaining legal advice was "one of the significant purposes of KBR's investigation," and therefore the attorney-client privilege applied.

The D.C. Circuit denied an en banc petition filed by the relator, Harry Barko, in an order dated September 2nd,4 and issued its mandate on September 19th.5 Barko announced his intent to appeal to the Supreme Court6 and filed a motion before the district court to stay summary judgment proceedings7 pending a ruling from the Supreme Court on any petitions for certiorari. The district court denied this motion on September 15, and ordered additional briefing by the parties to resolve additional discovery disputes. Under the Supreme Court rules, Barko has until December 1 to ask the Court to hear his case.

Although the KBR trial court ruling generated intense interest and debate, the appellate court, at least for now, has reinstated the law in the D.C. Circuit to reflect the status quo on the applicability of attorney-client privilege in internal investigations. Although KBR, in the end,did not break any new legal ground, the case underscores the issues and risksthat companies must address with attorney-client privilege in internal investigations, including:

1. Involvement of Counsel to the Extent Possible

Even if communications made by and to non-attorneys are protected by the attorney-client privilege, the D.C. Circuit held that an investigation must still fall "under the auspices" of the company's legal department. Whether an investigation will fall under the auspices of the legal department will continue to be a fact-specific issue, but it behooves companies to involve counsel as early and often as possible, particularly if non-attorneys are to be involved in conducting the inquiry.

As an example, in another recent D.C. case, a trial court judge held that an internal audit report prepared by a U.S. Navy contractor was not privileged where outside counsel's involvement had been limited to recommending an internal investigation, and drafting a legal memo discussing potential legal issues based on the results of the investigation described by the client.8 That court even went so far as to rebuke the contractor for retaining outside counsel only "in a watered-down capacity to 'consult' on the investigation in order to cloak the investigation with privilege."

This suspicion that corporate defendants will use the attorney-client privilege as a pretext to obstruct discovery was also evident in the KBR case, where the district court's opinion may have been colored by its view that KBR was trying to cloak the materials in privilege because those materials potentially undermined the company's case for summary judgment. The burden rests with the company to establish privilege, and judges who believe that the privilege is invoked in bad faith may not hesitate to order document production where the nexus between the investigation and counsel's involvement is not abundantly clear. For these reasons, companies should involve counsel in an investigation at the outset and attorneys should remain actively involved throughout an investigation.

2. "Magic Words" to Employees in Interviews are not Required to Show Privilege, but Effectively Worded Upjohn Warnings are Still Key

Although the D.C. Circuit made clear in KBR that there are no "magic words" a company is required to say to employees in interviews for the privilege to apply, advising employees that the communications in an investigation interview are protected by the attorney-client privilege, and that the privilege is the company's to waive, should be a standard and necessary component of such interviews, consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981). In all cases, counsel should give this warning to employees at the outset of all interviews, and should make a record in all interviews to reflect that the warnings have been provided, whether through handwritten notes or a more formal memorandum created contemporaneously with the interview. In-house counsel in particular need to exercise care to communicate that they are acting in a legal capacity rather than a business capacity in an interview, to ensure that the privilege is preserved.

3. Preserving Attorney-Client Privilege in Internal Investigations Abroad

A more specific issue not discussed in the KBR case is the application of the attorney-client privilege to internal investigations abroad. In October of last year, a New York district court ordered a Chinese bank to produce documents prepared by the bank's legal department in China, as well as communications to and from that department,9 because: (1) Chinese law does not recognize attorney-client privilege, and (2) even for documents that might have a sufficient connection with the U.S. for U.S. law to apply, those documents would only be privileged if they were prepared by or for licensed members of a bar – even though in China, it is not necessary for in-house counsel to be members of a bar.

The court later noted that the bank would be permitted to assert attorney-client privilege over documents pertaining to the bank's "global" internal investigation into the plaintiffs' claims, to the extent the bank could demonstrate that the investigation was in fact directed by counsel. Nonetheless, the outcome in that case should be a signal to U.S. companies doing business abroad, as well as non-U.S. companies investigating potential legal risks under U.S. law, that they must be attuned to potential complications with attorney-client privilege claims when conducting investigations overseas.

4. Risks for U.S. Government Contractors

Although the KBR case captured the attention of many U.S. companies across industries, including companies that do not do business with the federal government, government contractors should pay particular attention in light of the increasing legal risks companies assume in doing business with the federal government. The D.C. Circuit's opinion restored some certainty to the government contracts community by reversing the district court's ruling that the COBC investigation was not privileged if "required" under a government contract or applicable Government regulations.

Nonetheless, the need to conduct internal investigations as part of an effective legal compliance program will only increase with the growing legal risks for government contractors. Although the D.C. Circuit ultimately found that KBR could not be compelled to produce the reports in full, the gist of the reports KBR compiled is in the district court opinion and publicly available for any government agency, suspension and debarment official, or contracting officer to see. In an era of federal budget cuts and a shrinking pool of available government contracts, such information can have significant business costs for government contractors just as it can have significant legal costs. All of the foregoing underscores the need to preserve privileged materials associated with internal investigations.

Although many lauded the D.C. Circuit's decision as one that restored reason to the application of attorney-client privilege in corporate internal investigations, the case is far from resolved, having been remanded to the D.C. district court to proceed to summary judgment, and possibly to trial if the district court does not grant summary judgment for all of Barko's claims. Based on the information in the privileged documents that it reviewed in camera,the district court plainly regarded the government contractor's invocation of the attorney-client privilege with a jaundiced eye.

We continue to monitor this case, but it remains to be seen whether and how the court's conclusion that the reports directly contravened some of the company's factual representations in the litigation will affect the outcome on summary judgment. The KBR decision makes clear that it is important to take as many steps as possible at the internal investigation stage to demonstrate that related communications and documents are privileged, and the importance of communicating clearly to all involved that the company is conducting a thorough internal investigation with counsel and takes seriously any allegations of illegal conduct.


1. See http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/06/27/internal-investigations-are-still-privileged-dc-circuit-says/.

2. See http://colreaction.stroock.com/Reaction/7757/1.pdf.

3. See http://colreaction.stroock.com/Reaction/7757/4.pdf.

4. See http://colreaction.stroock.com/Reaction/7757/2.pdf.

5. See http://colreaction.stroock.com/Reaction/7757/3.pdf.

6. See http://www.bna.com/dc-circuit-rejects-n17179894515/.

7. See http://colreaction.stroock.com/Reaction/7757/5.pdf.

8. See http://colreaction.stroock.com/Reaction/7757/6.pdf.

9. See http://colreaction.stroock.com/Reaction/7757/7.pdf.

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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

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.

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 by clicking here .

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.