Document: 449 U.S. 383 101 S.Ct. 677 66 L.Ed.2d 584 UPJOHN COMPANY et al., Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES al. No. 79-886. Argued Nov. 5, 1980. Decided Jan. 13, 1981. Syllabus When the General Counsel for petitioner pharmaceutical manufacturing corporation (hereafter petitioner) was informed that one of its foreign subsidiaries had made questionable payments to government officials in order secure business, an internal investigation such initiated. As part this investigation, petitioner's attorneys sent a questionnaire all managers seeking detailed information concerning payments, and responses were returned Counsel. The outside counsel also interviewed recipients other company officers employees. Subsequently, based on report voluntarily submitted by disclosing Internal Revenue Service (IRS) began determine tax consequences issued summons pursuant 26 U.S.C. § 7602 demanding production of, inter alia, questionnaires memoranda notes interviews. Petitioner refused produce documents grounds they protected from disclosure attorney-client privilege constituted work product prepared anticipation litigation. United States then filed petition Federal District Court enforcement summons. That court adopted Magistrate's recommendation should be enforced, Magistrate having concluded, been waived Government sufficient showing necessity overcome protection work-product doctrine. Appeals rejected finding waiver privilege, but held under so-called "control group test" did not apply "[t]o extent communications agents responsible directing [petitioner's] actions response legal advice . simple reason 'client's.' " doctrine IRS summonses. Held: 1. employees are covered insofar as any reflecting interview questions concerned. Pp. 389-397. (a) control test overlooks fact exists protect only giving professional those who can act it lawyer enable him give sound advice. While case individual client provider person acts lawyer's same, corporate context will frequently beyond (as defined Appeals) possess needed corporation's lawyers. Middle-level—and indeed lower-level can, within scope their employment, embroil serious difficulties, is natural these would have relevant if he adequately advise with respect actual or potential difficulties. 390-392. (b) thus frustrates very purpose discouraging communication render client. attorney's more significant noncontrol than officially sanction advice, makes difficult convey full frank put into effect policy. P. 392. (c) narrow given formulate when faced specific problem threatens limit valuable efforts ensure client's compliance law. 392-393. (d) Here, at issue acting such, direction superiors counsel. Information available upper-echelon management supply basis securities laws, currency regulations, duties shareholders, litigation each areas. concerned matters employees' duties, themselves sufficiently aware being questioned could obtain 394-395. 2. applies 397-402. obligation imposed remains subject traditional privileges limitations, nothing language legislative history provisions suggests intent Congress preclude application 398. applied wrong standard concluded protections sought constitute oral statements. If reveal communications, privilege. To do attorneys' mental processes evaluating communications. Rule Civil Procedure 26, which accords special revealing processes, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 495, 67 385, 91 L.Ed. 451, make clear, cannot disclosed simply substantial need inability equivalent without undue hardship. 401. 600 F.2d 1223, 6 Cir., reversed remanded. Daniel M. Gribbon, Washington, D. C., petitioners. Lawrence G. Wallace, respondents. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari address important applicability proceedings enforce 445 925, 100 1310, 63 758. With question parties various amici described our task choosing between two "tests" gained adherents courts appeals. acutely aware, however, we sit decide concrete cases abstract propositions decline lay down broad rule series rules govern conceivable future area, even able so. do, conclude protects involved compelled does proceedings. 2 * Upjohn Co. manufactures sells pharmaceuticals here abroad. In January 1976 independent accountants conducting audit Upjohn's discovered subsidiary benefit business. accountants, so petitioner, Mr. Gerard Thomas, Vice President, Secretary, Thomas member Michigan New York Bars, has 20 years. He consulted R. T. Parfet, Jr., Chairman Board. It decided conduct what termed "questionable payments." letter containing "All Foreign Area Managers" over Chairman's signature. noting recent disclosures several American companies "possibly illegal" emphasized Upjohn. indicated asked identified "the company's Counsel," "to determining nature magnitude Company employee official government." payments. Managers instructed treat "highly confidential" discuss anyone might helpful providing requested information. Responses directly Thomas. some 33 investigation. 3 On March 1976, preliminary Securities Exchange Commission Form 8-K certain payments.1 A copy simultaneously Service, immediately Special lists responded questionnaire. November 23, of: 4 files relative conducted supervision identify governments political contributions affiliates since 1, 1971 whether funds improperly accounted books during same period. 5 "The records include limited written Company's affiliates, memorandums interviews abroad subsidiaries." App. 17a-18a. declined specified second paragraph August 31, 1977, §§ 7402(b) 7604(a) Western Michigan. enforced. Petitioners appealed Sixth Circuit 1227, n. 12, agreed Id., 1225. reasoned accepting petitioners' claim broader encourage ignore unpleasant facts create too "zone silence." Noting remanded determination group" made. concluding footnote stated "is applicable administrative summonses 7602." 1228, 13. II 7 Evidence 501 provides witness shall governed principles common law may interpreted light experience." oldest confidential known 8 J. Wigmore, 2290 (McNaughton rev. 1961). Its clients thereby promote public interests observance administration justice. recognizes advocacy serves ends depends upon fully last Term Trammel States, 40, 51, 906, 913, 186 (1980): lawyer-client rests advocate counselor know relates reasons representation mission carried out." And Fisher 425 391, 403, 96 1569, 1577, 48 39 (1976), recognized attorneys." This rationale long Court, see Hunt Blackburn, 128 464, 470, 9 125, 127, 32 488 (1888) (privilege founded necessity, interest justice, aid persons knowledge skilled practice, assistance safely readily availed free apprehension disclosure"). Admittedly complications arise corporation, theory artificial creature law, individual; assumed corporation. Louisville & Nashville Co., 236 318, 336, 35 363, 369, 59 598 (1915), contest general proposition. Appeals, considered present "different problem," inanimate entity "only senior management, guiding integrating operations, said identity analogous whole." 1226. first articulate below, Philadelphia Westinghouse Electric Corp., 210 F.Supp. 483, 485 (ED Pa.), mandamus prohibition denied sub nom. Kirkpatrick, 312 742 (CA3 1962), cert. denied, 372 943, 83 937, 969 (1963), reflected similar conceptual approach: "Keeping mind is, Is asserted privileged made?, most satisfactory solution, I think, making communication, whatever rank be, position take decision about action attorney, then, effect, (or personifies) his apply." (Emphasis supplied.) 10 Such view, See Trammel, supra, S.Ct., 913; Fisher, 1577. step resolution ascertaining factual background sifting through eye legally relevant. ABA Code Professional Responsibility, Ethical Consideration 4-1: 11 "A matter handling advantage system. exercise judgment separate irrelevant unimportant. ethical hold inviolate confidences secrets facilitates development essential proper encourages laymen seek early assistance." 12 511, 393-394, 451 (1947). 13 same. context, below-"officers [the company's] advice"-who lower-level—employees noted Diversified Industries, Inc. Meredith, 572 596 (CA8 1978) (en banc): 14 "In necessary glean middle non-management personnel well top executives. attorney dealing complex 'is "Hobson's choice". highest authority", privileged. If, hand, "very find extremely difficult, impossible, happened.' 608-609 (quoting Weinschel Corporate Employee Interviews Attorney-Client Privilege, B.C.Ind. Com. L.Rev. 873, 876 (1971)). 15 below members See, e. g., Duplan Corp. Deering Milliken, Inc., 397 1146, 1164 (DSC 1974) ("After forms her opinion, no immediate Board President. must it"). 16 vast complicated array regulatory legislation confronting modern corporations, unlike individuals, "constantly go lawyers out how obey law," Burnham, Privilege Arena, 24 Bus.Law. 901, 913 (1969), particularly area hardly instinctive matter, see, Gypsum 438 422, 440-441, 98 2864, 2875-2876, 57 854 (1978) ("the behavior proscribed [Sherman] Act often distinguish gray zone socially acceptable economically justifiable business conduct").2 though abstractly formulated unvarying "test" necessarily mathematical precision. But served, predict degree certainty particular discussions protected. An uncertain purports results widely varying applications courts, little better all. terms suggest unpredictability application. restricts availability play "substantial role" deciding response. Disparate decisions applying illustrate unpredictability. Compare, Hogan Zletz, 43 F.R.D. 308, 315-316 (ND Okl.1967), aff'd Natta Hogan, 392 686 (CA10 1968) (control includes assistant patent division research department), Congoleum GAF 49 82, 83-85 Pa.1969), aff'd, 478 1398 1973) vice presidents, directors president research). 17 employees3 found, "Mr. thereafter 78-1 USTC ¶ 9277, pp. 83,598, 83,599. Information, areas.4 Counsel" referred opening sentence possible illegality ones sought. 40a. statement policy accompanying clearly implications "in there uncertainty practices investigation." "Upjohn comply laws regulations," commissions "will used subterfuge bribes illegal payments" "proper legal." Any agreements distributors approved "by attorney" Counsel." 165a-166a. worldwide, interviewees receiving Pursuant explicit instructions Board, made, id., 39a, 43a, kept company.5 Consistent underlying purposes against disclosure. 18 extend limits fear doing entail severe burdens discovery silence" affairs. Application here, puts adversary worse never taken place. communications; communicated attorney: 19 "[T]he extends facts. thing entirely different thing. answer question, 'What you say write attorney?' refuse disclose merely because incorporated attorney." 205 830, 831 ( q2.7). F.2d., 611; State ex rel. Dudek 34 Wis.2d 559, 580, 150 N.W.2d 387, 399 (1967) party conceal lawyer"). Here provided list employees, already 25 them. probably convenient subpoenaing attorneys, considerations convenience policies served Jackson concurring U.S., 516, 396: "Discovery intended learned profession perform functions wits borrowed adversary." 21 Needless say, before us, undertake draft set challenges investigatory subpoenas. approach violate spirit 501. S.Rep. 93-1277, p. (1974) recognition relationship determined case-by-case basis"); 47, 910-911; Gillock, 360, 367, 1185, 1190, 454 (1980). "case-by-case" slight undermine desirable boundaries obeys Rules. At time sanctioned cannot, consistent experience," Fed. Evid. 501, area. III 22 Our disposes far reaches further, testified recording questions. 27a-28a, 91a-93a. material counsel, reach ruling 7602.6 23 concedes, wisely, erred Brief Respondents 16, 48. announced 30 years ago "an attempt, purported justification, statements, private personal recollections formed adverse party's course duties." 510, 393. "it privacy" permitted "much now writing remain unwritten. thoughts, heretofore inviolate, own. Inefficiency, unfairness sharp inevitably develop preparation trial. demoralizing. cause justice poorly served." 393-394. "strong policy" reaffirmed recently Nobles, 422 225, 236-240, 95 2160, 2169-2171, 45 141 (1975), substantially 26(b)(3).7 Term, "subject limitations." Euge, 444 707, 714, 874, 879-880, 741 Nothing 26(b)(3) codifies doctrine, Rules 81(a)(3). Donaldson 400 517, 528, 534, 541, 27 580 (1971). conceding asserts protections. apparently 83,605. relies following Hickman: "We mean materials obtained adversary's toward cases. Where nonprivileged hidden file where one's case, properly had. justified witnesses longer reached difficulty." 394. 28 stresses scattered across globe forbidden considers irrelevant. above-quoted Hickman, "oral statements presently form attorney's] impressions memoranda." 512, "not believe circumstances justify production. rare situation justifying type." 512-513, 252-253, 2177 (WHITE, J., concurring). Forcing witnesses' disfavored tends U. S., 513, 394-395 ("what saw fit regarding remarks"); id, 516-517, 396 language, permeated inferences") (Jackson, concurring).8 29 processes. permits tangible things constituting Magistrate, 83,604. goes on, state "[i]n ordering required impressions, conclusions, opinions theories representative litigation." Although specifically refer witnesses, stressed danger clear sort draftsmen deserving protection. Notes Advisory Committee 1970 Amendment Rules, U.S.C.App., 442 ("The subdivision opinions, party. drew attention protecting recollection steadfastly safeguarded lawyers' ."). Based foregoing, witnesses. re Grand Jury Proceedings, 473 840, 848 (personal recollections, notes, pertaining conversation witnesses); Investigation, 412 949 Pa.1976) (notes "are much thinking probative witness's words absolutely Those declining adopt absolute nonetheless entitled 599 1224, 1231 1979) ("special shape discoverability .; discoverable 'rare situation' "); Cf. Subpoena, 504, 511-512 (CA2 1979). 31 time. need" "without hardship" articulated 26(b)(3). are, juncture always rule, think stronger unavailability means compel Since thought proceeding this, whose recommendations lenient protection, best procedure aspect reverse remand further connection opinion. Accordingly, reversed, ordered. Chief BURGER, judgment. 36 join Parts Part II, agree Court's rejection test, so, ultimate holding states, "if protected." Ante, For reason, afford guidance advising them, federal courts. 37 variety factors us ante, Because great importance issue, my view that, least when, former speaks proposed employment. authorized inquire assist performing functions: employee's bound bind corporation; assessing consequences, any, conduct; formulating appropriate others regard conduct. 596, 609 banc); Harper Row Publishers, Decker, 423 487, 491-492 (CA7 1970), equally divided 348, 479, 433 (1971); Corp 1163-1165 1974). Other privileged—as petitioners suggested formulations*—but prescribe details case. 38 Nevertheless, facets neglect duty provide squarely presents context. Indeed, "shall clarify aspects us. Simply asserting failure "may certainty," 396, neither minimizes continuing confusion nor harmonizes inherent dissonance acknowledging while frame issues presented. July 28, amendment argues risk civil criminal liability suffices corporations absence ignores depth quality investigations, suffer, undertaken. proves much, privilege: trying strong incentive lawyer, yet value facilitating Seven eighty-six terminated employment interview. 33a-38a. argue activities period Neither occasion treatment below. 26a-27a, 103a, 123a-124a. 1229 1979); 511 83,599: treated except counsel." discussion counsel's seven 3, supra. provides, pertinent part: "[A] otherwise (b)(1) trial another (including consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, agent) unable hardship means. "what questions, substance beliefs these, related inquiry, thoughts instances ask elsewhere." 21-23, 25; Bar Association Amicus Curiae 5-6, 2; College Trial Lawyers Law Firms Amici 9-10, 5.

Category: 4