{"id":1669,"date":"2025-11-16T00:06:09","date_gmt":"2025-11-16T05:06:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/?page_id=1669"},"modified":"2025-11-16T00:06:09","modified_gmt":"2025-11-16T05:06:09","slug":"attorney-client-privilege-versus-the-right-to-put-on-a-defense","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/in-print\/volume-38-issue-1-winter-2025\/attorney-client-privilege-versus-the-right-to-put-on-a-defense\/","title":{"rendered":"Attorney-Client Privilege Versus the Right to Put On A Defense"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Suppose a criminal defendant has a meritorious defense and wants to put<br \/>\nthat defense before the factfinder. It would be bizarre for a non-party to be able<br \/>\nto prevent the defendant from doing so simply by refusing to consent.<br \/>\nSuppose someone holding a valid attorney-client privilege claim, who has<br \/>\nnever waived it in the past, wants to continue maintaining it. It would be just as<br \/>\nbizarre for someone else to be able to force a waiver over the privilege-holder\u2019s<br \/>\nobjection simply by putting on a defense in separate litigation that does not<br \/>\ninvolve the privilege-holder.<br \/>\nThese principles come into direct tension in cases involving corporate attor<br \/>\nney-client privilege and claims against individual employees. When individuals<br \/>\nface criminal or civil liability for their work in a corporate capacity, they may<br \/>\nwant to raise an advice of counsel defense to prove their innocence. That<br \/>\ndefense would ordinarily require disclosure of all of the relevant privileged<br \/>\ncommunications. Yet because the corporation rather than the employee holds<br \/>\nthe attorney-client privilege, the corporation ordinarily would be able to refuse<br \/>\nto waive that privilege and thereby prevent its employees from mounting an<br \/>\nadvice of counsel defense. Denying individuals\u2019 right to put on a defense is a<br \/>\npotential constitutional violation and raises serious concerns about justice and<br \/>\nfairness. But shredding the attorney-client privilege to protect those interests<br \/>\nraises similarly weighty policy concerns. This real-world problem occurs repeatedly. Courts and commentators<br \/>\naddressing it, however, have not yet offered any satisfactory solutions. This<br \/>\nArticle examines the competing interests behind corporate attorney-client privi<br \/>\nlege and individuals\u2019 right to put on a defense and the relative merits of the various approaches that courts and commentators have so far offered to resolve that tension. It then offers a novel solution to this problem using the already-existing vehicle of Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d).<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/24\/2025\/11\/GT-GJLE250018-1.pdf\">Keep Reading<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Suppose a criminal defendant has a meritorious defense and wants to put that defense before the factfinder. It would be bizarre for a non-party to be able to prevent the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14207,"featured_media":0,"parent":1667,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-1669","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1669","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14207"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1669"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1669\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1671,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1669\/revisions\/1671"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1667"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1669"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}