H.R. 3013 would provide appropriate protection to attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product.
Detailed Summary
<b></b>
Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2007 - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit any U.S. agent or attorney, in any federal investigation or criminal or civil enforcement matter, from demanding, requesting, or conditioning treatment ("giving cooperation credit") on the disclosure by an organization (or affiliated person) of any communication protected by the attorney-client privilege or any attorney work product.
Prohibits a U.S. agent or attorney from conditioning a civil or criminal charging decision relating to an organization (or affiliated person) on one or more specified actions, or from using one or more such actions as a factor in determining whether an organization or affiliated person is cooperating with the government.
Numbers among the actions a U.S. agent or attorney may not use as a charging decision condition or a cooperation-determining factor: (1) any valid assertion of the attorney-client privilege or privilege for attorney work product; (2) the provision of counsel to, or contribution to the legal defense fees or expenses of, an employee of the organization; (3) entry into a joint-defense, information-sharing, or common-interest agreement with an employee of the organization if the organization determines it has a common interest in defending against the investigation or enforcement matter; (4) the sharing of relevant information with an employee; or (5) a failure to terminate an employee's employment, or otherwise sanction an employee, because of the employee's decision to exercise his or her constitutional rights or other legal protections in response to a government request.
Prohibits a U.S. agent or attorney from demanding or requesting that an organization or an affiliated person not take any such action.
Declares that this Act does not affect any other federal statute that may authorize, in the course of an examination or inspection, a U.S. agent or attorney to require or compel the production of attorney-client privileged material or attorney work product.
Declares that the prohibition against conditioning a charging decision does not apply to charging an organization (or affiliated person) for certain conduct under a federal law which makes that conduct in itself an offense. Specifies as conduct which may under federal law constitute an offense, and so be exempted from this prohibition: (1) the provision of counsel to, or contribution to the legal defense fees or expenses of, an employee of the organization; (2) entry into a joint defense, information sharing, or common interest agreement with an employee of that organization if the organization determines it has a common interest in defending against the investigation or enforcement matter; and (3) the sharing of information relevant to the investigation or enforcement matter with an employee of the organization.<br>
<br>
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 11/14/2007: Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
Visitor Comments
Ben
The bill has several ambiguous phrases that could potentially be fatal flaws in the document. One example is that it says that no Lawyer of the United States shall.... Unless this is defined somewhere else, is it clear, most especially in civil matters, who is a 'lawyer of the United States?' Is it opposing counsel? Is it only attorneys representing agencies of the United States Government? Anyway, there are others and the document needs to be rewritten with language and text that will both say what is meant and mean what is said
Alena
I would think that when they referenced "a lawyer of the United States" that they only meant federal prosecutors as they are seen, within our justice system, as lawyers of the US. However, I do agree that more terms need to be defined. Perhaps the Senate will do this when they consider S. 186