Court Opinion

ID: 9428128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:22:53.669112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:11.974995
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice Burger,
concurring in part and concurring
in the judgment.
I join in Parts I and III of the opinion of the Court and in the judgment. As to Part II, I agree fully with the Court’s rejection of the so-called “control group” test, its reasons for doing so, and its ultimate holding that the communications at issue are privileged. As the Court states, however, “if the purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to be served, the attorney and client must be able to predict with some degree of certainty whether particular discussions will be protected.” Ante, at 393. Por this very reason, I believe that we should articulate a standard that will govern similar cases and afford guidance to corporations, counsel advising them, and federal courts.
The Court properly relies on a variety of factors in concluding that the communications now before us are privileged. See ante, at 394-395. Because of the great importance of the issue, in my view the Court should make clear now that, as a *403general rule, a communication is privileged at least when, as here, an employee or former employee speaks at the direction of the management with an attorney regarding conduct or proposed conduct within the scope of employment. The attorney must be one authorized by the management to inquire into the subject and must be seeking information to assist counsel in performing any of the following functions: (a) evaluating whether the employee's conduct has bound or would bind the corporation; (b) assessing the legal consequences, if any, of that conduct; or (c) formulating appropriate legal responses to actions that have been or may be taken by others with regard to that conduct. See, e. g., Diversified Industries, Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F. 2d 596, 609 (CA8 1978) (en banc); Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F. 2d 487, 491-492 (CA7 1970), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 400 U. S. 348 (1971); Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., 397 F. Supp. 1146, 1163-1165 (SC 1974). Other communications between employees and corporate counsel may indeed be privileged — as the petitioners and several amici have suggested in their proposed formulations* — but the need for certainty does not compel us now to prescribe all the details of the privilege in this case.
Nevertheless, to say we should not reach all facets of the privilege does not mean that we should neglect our duty to provide guidance in a case that squarely presents the question in a traditional adversary context. Indeed, because Federal Rule of Evidence 501 provides that the law of privileges “shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience,” this Court has a special duty to clarify aspects of the law of privileges properly *404before us. Simply asserting that this failure “may to some slight extent undermine desirable certainty,” ante, at 396, neither minimizes the consequences of continuing uncertainty and confusion nor harmonizes the inherent dissonance of acknowledging that uncertainty while declining to clarify it within the frame of issues presented.

See Brief for Petitioners 21-23, and n. 25; Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 5-6, and n. 2; Brief for American College of Trial Lawyers and 33 Law Firms as Amici Curiae 9-10, and n. 5.