Last week, in its pending antitrust case against Google, Inc., the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged Google routinely misuses the attorney-client privilege to prevent discovery of ordinary-course business communications.
In a motion for sanctions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, DOJ accused Google of using its “Communicate with Care” program to teach employees how to shield sensitive business communications “by using false requests for legal advice.” Specifically, Google allegedly instructs employees to create artificial indicia of privilege by adding in-house counsel, applying an attorney-client privilege label, and requesting legal advice even where such advice is unnecessary. According to DOJ, in-house counsel included on these communications, “knowing the game,” regularly do not even respond to the requests. This “egregious” practice allegedly existed at every level of the company, “spanning nearly a decade and permeating the company from the top executives on down.”
DOJ argued that employees abiding by this policy “were not acting out of an abundance of caution but instead were acting — as directed — to hide specific communications about subjects being investigated by regulators.” In fact, according to DOJ, “[t]he Communicate-with-Care program had no purpose except to mislead anyone who might seek the documents in an investigation, discovery, or ensuing dispute.”
According to DOJ, Google had initially withheld or redacted tens of thousands of documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Some of these were subsequently deprivileged but only after multiple challenges by DOJ to the specific privilege claims.
Further, while Google had offered to re-review its privilege log in light of DOJ’s position regarding the Communicate with Care program, this offer “misse[d] the point.” According to DOJ, the program “renders Google’s privilege log useless as a functional tool to evaluate privilege claims.” Therefore, DOJ requested that the court sanction Google by ordering it to release all previously withheld or redacted communications in which an in-house attorney was included but did not respond in the chain of communications with nonattorneys.
Google filed a response disputing DOJ’s claims and calling the Communicate with Care program “legitimate guidance” designed to inform employees about best practices in communicating with in-house counsel.
While the court has yet to rule on DOJ’s pending motion, this dispute highlights DOJ’s increasingly aggressive stance on corporate privilege claims. Specifically, companies should carefully consider assertions of privilege where in-house counsel is looped in to communications on sensitive matters without legal advice actively being sought. Once a company is involved in litigation and preparing a privilege log, care should be taken to provide sufficient facts to establish the privilege as to each document over which privilege is claimed. DOJ’s Antitrust Division now uses targeted scripts on produced logs to identify potentially deficient entries. Given the high costs of privilege disputes and the legal risks should privilege claims fail, companies should consider applying heightened attention to their privilege claims before submitting logs in the first instance and consider working with experienced legal counsel appropriately attuned to these issues from an e-discovery perspective.
Contacts
Sidley’s White Collar practice spans the globe and is consistently recognized as a leader for criminal investigations, agency enforcement actions, False Claims Act matters, and other governmental inquiries and litigation. If you have questions regarding this Update, please contact the Sidley lawyer with whom you work, or one of our White Collar partners or counsel:
Washington, D.C. James M. Cole, jcole@sidley.com Karen A. Popp, kpopp@sidley.com Thomas C. Green, tcgreen@sidley.com Mark D. Hopson, mhopson@sidley.com Jeffrey T. Green, jgreen@sidley.com Frank R. Volpe, fvolpe@sidley.com Kristin Graham Koehler, kkoehler@sidley.com Colleen M. Lauerman, clauerman@sidley.com Leslie A. Shubert, lshubert@sidley.com Angela M. Xenakis, axenakis@sidley.com Brian P. Morrissey, bmoriss@sidley.com Ellen Crisham Pellegrini, epellegrini@sidley.com Craig Francis Dukin, cdukin@sidley.com Boston Jack W. Pirozzolo, jpirozzolo@sidley.com Doreen M. Rachal, drachal@sidley.com Los Angeles Douglas A. Axel, daxel@sidley.com Ellyce R. Cooper, ecooper@sidley.com Dallas Paige Holden Montgomery, pmontgomery@sidley.com David A. Silva, david.silva@sidley.com |
New York |
Managing associates Kaitlyn Potter and Drew A. Domina contributed to this Sidley Update.
Sidley Austin LLP provides this information as a service to clients and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking advice from professional advisers.
Attorney Advertising—Sidley Austin LLP, One South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603. +1 312 853 7000. Sidley and Sidley Austin refer to Sidley Austin LLP and affiliated partnerships, as explained at www.sidley.com/disclaimer.
© Sidley Austin LLP