Conclusions of Accident Investigation Performed with Assistance of Counsel are Privileged

Many corporations have accident reporting policies which require their employees to draw conclusions about the cause of an accident or whether it could have been avoided. The goal is improved safety, but the result is often heartburn for in-house counsel because documents prepared in the ordinary course of business generally must be produced in litigation. With the goal of improved safety, reports are often -- rightly or wrongly -- very self-critical.

Corporate counsel who hope to keep conclusions in confidence will often promptly hire outside counsel to assist in an accident investigation when litigation is anticipated.  They should be encouraged by last week’s decision of Magistrate Smith in Byrd v Wal-Mart Transportation, LLC, in the US District Court, Southern District of Georgia, which found the conclusions in a report were privileged even if the report was prepared pursuant to a corporate policy.

 Following a fatal truck accident, Wal-Mart’s in-house lawyers immediately hired outside local counsel because litigation was anticipated. Counsel was involved in the investigation of the accident. In the ordinary course of business, Wal-Mart has its safety personnel perform an investigation, which is then reviewed by a “Serious Accident Committee.” The committee issues an opinion as to whether the accident was “preventable” or “non-preventable.”

 During Wal-Mart’s corporate deposition plaintiff inquired about the conclusions of the Serious Accident Committee. Wal-Mart claimed privilege; plaintiff argued that the conclusions were reached in the ordinary course of business, rather than in anticipation of litigation, and had to be disclosed. The court granted Wal-Mart a protective order noting that this line of inquiry involved mental impressions that are privileged. Plaintiffs’ lawyers might take heart from a foot note that suggests that the deponent would have had to have been privy to counsel’s deliberations in order for the privilege to apply.

In-house Lawyers Only Say if Clients Can Do Something, Not if They Should: I don't think so

In-house lawyers only tell clients if they “can” do something, but not if they “should.” Compliance departments take care of advising about the “should.” I came across that distinction today in an article on Law.com about Pfizer. I have no personal knowledge about the Pfizer situation, but, generally speaking, this distinction simply amazed (infuriated) me. How can: whether or not something may violate a regulation, put your client at risk of litigation or a claim, or in any way violate a legal standard not be part of a law department’s analysis for its in-house clients?  

Last I heard, staying out of trouble with corporate constituents (including regulators) was good long term business strategy. If management needs a compliance nanny to tell it the right thing to do the problem isn’t with the law department. If management doesn’t trust  -- or believe -- its lawyers’ counsel, maybe it has the wrong lawyers.  I still think that lawyers are supposed to be "trusted advisers" but not deciders of business strategy. 

The can/should distinction reflects the opinion held by some lawyers who have never been in-house that somehow in-house lawyers don’t really functioning as counsel to their in-house clients, or are ethically deficient.