Congress V. the Attorney-Client Privilege: A "Full and Frank" Discussion

By Beard, Glenn A. | American Criminal Law Review, Fall 1997 | Go to article overview

Congress V. the Attorney-Client Privilege: A "Full and Frank" Discussion


Beard, Glenn A., American Criminal Law Review


I. INTRODUCTION II. CONGRESS'S POWER TO INVESTIGATE III. THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IV. WHY CONGRESS HAS DISCRETION TO OVERRULE THE PRIVILEGE

A. Legislative History and Practice

B. Judicial Precedents

C. Constitutional Law

D. The Attorney-Client Privilege in Other Non-Judicial Fora

E. Ethical Rules

F. Erie Jurisdictional Law V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

In late 1995, the Senate Whitewater Committee subpoenaed William Kennedy III, a member of the White House Counsel staff, to produce the notes he had taken at a November 1993 meeting in the offices of President Clinton's personal law firm, William & Connolly.(1) Also in attendance at that meeting were the President's personal counsel, David Kendall, and White House Chief Counsel Bernard Nussbaum.(2) Kendall resisted the subpoena, arguing that the meeting pertained to confidential legal advice for President Clinton, and that his notes were therefore protected by the attorney-client privilege.(3) Unswayed, the committee began enforcement proceedings under the Senate civil enforcement statute.

Before this mechanism became necessary, however, the notes were turned over under an agreement that the disclosure would effect no waiver of the attorney-client privilege with respect to other matters.5 Thus Congress and the White House avoided a significant confrontation over the applicability of the privilege to the information sought by the committee. The issue faced by the Administration was not only that the privilege as developed by the courts might not have applied to the meeting, but also that the committee could have decided to overrule a claim of attorney-client privilege that a court would have upheld.

Most clients, and probably many lawyers, assume that the attorney-client privilege protects their confidential communications against disclosure in any legal proceeding. Throughout the history of legislative investigations, however, sporadic debates have erupted over whether the privilege applies to testimony given to a congressional committee.(6) This Note argues that congressional witnesses are not legally entitled to the protection of the attorney-client privilege, and that investigating committees therefore have discretionary authority to respect or overrule such claims as they see fit. Part H briefly discusses Congress's investigatory and contempt powers. Part M outlines the rationale for and contours of the attorney-client privilege. Part IV examines and rejects the arguments advanced in support of a witness's right to invoke the privilege before Congress. Part V argues that Congress should sometimes exercise its discretion to overrule claims of attorney-client privilege.

II. CONGRESS'S POWER TO INVESTIGATE

Congress has an implied constitutional power to conduct investigations. This power is a corollary to Congress's expressly delegated legislative function.(7) The power to investigate is broad and must only be "related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress."(8) However, the power may not be exercised in derogation of various constitutional protections, including those against compulsory self-incrimination and unreasonable searches and seizures.(9)

Congress can enforce its subpoenas by instituting contempt proceedings against a witness in one of two ways. First, either House of Congress may choose to arrest, try, and punish a witness pursuant to its implied contempt power.(10) This practice has fallen out of favor, however, since the creation of Congress's second enforcement mechanism, the contempt statute,(11) originally enacted in 1857.(12) The current version provides as follows:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of

either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any

matter under inquiry before either House, or [any committee thereof],

willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer

any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be

deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more

than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail

for not less than one month nor more than twelve months. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Congress V. the Attorney-Client Privilege: A "Full and Frank" Discussion
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.