Federal courts generally recognize that government agencies, like corporations, can invoke the attorney–client privilege. This means communications between government counsel and government officials or employees can be privileged if made confidentially for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, much like corporate Upjohn communications. In Upjohn Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court held that communications with a corporation’s lower-level employees were privileged when senior management directed those employees to speak with counsel so the organization could receive legal advice. By analogy, government attorneys’ communications with agency employees (including low-level staff) are protected so long as the communications are made in confidence and for the purpose of the agency obtaining legal counsel. The privilege is held by the government entity, not the individual employee – only agency superiors can waive it, even if the communication involved a lower-level official. Nearly all federal courts accept that a government entity “like a corporation” is entitled to claim attorney–client privilege in this way. (Notably, a few courts have questioned the privilege if the government lawyer was not giving advice akin to private counsel protecting personal interests. In one case, a court refused privilege where agency counsel’s communication was based on facts from third parties, a limitation critics call inconsistent with standard privilege principles. Overall, however, the dominant view is that government lawyers and officials do enjoy attorney–client privilege to the same extent as private parties.)
Communications with employees of government contractors present a harder question. Generally, disclosing privileged information to a third party waives confidentiality, but an important exception exists for certain non-employees who act as the functional equivalent of employees. In the corporate context, many courts extend privilege to communications with independent contractors or consultants who are “functional equivalents” of employees. For example, the Eighth Circuit’s influential In Re Bieter decision protected communications with a real-estate consultant who was so involved in the company’s affairs that he was “in all relevant respects the functional equivalent of an employee.”
Federal courts have since applied this doctrine to various third-party agents (accountants, financial consultants, PR advisors, etc.) working closely with an organization. By extension, if a government contractor’s personnel are effectively integrated into the agency’s legal team or decision-making (for instance, a contractor acting as an agency consultant or performing outsourced functions), communications between government counsel and those individuals may be privileged on a functional-equivalent theory. However, courts differ in how strictly they apply this test – some demand a multi-factor showing of close integration, while others take a broader, practical approach. The key is that the contractor’s employee must be acting for the purpose of the government seeking legal advice, nearly indistinguishable from an actual employee in that role. Absent those conditions, a purely third-party fact witness (even one employed by a government contractor) would not be a “client” for privilege purposes, and communications with them would not be attorney–client privileged. In such cases, the government may need to rely on work-product protection instead of privilege to shield its interactions with the witness.
Individuals depicted or heard in the foregoing media appearance or images may no longer be current attorneys, employees, members or affiliates with Chapman & Associates, PC or The Chapman Law Group (the “Firm”), including Ronald W. Chapman, II who is no longer affiliated with the Firm. For a current listing of the attorneys and services available with the Chapman Law Group, please see
https://chapmanlawgroup.com/team.
When government attorneys prepare a fact witness who is within the privileged circle (e.g., an agency employee), their communications can remain privileged so long as they involve legal strategy, case facts, or advice intended to help the agency’s legal position. For instance, if a Department of Justice attorney interviews and counsels a Medicare official about an upcoming deposition in a False Claims Act case, that discussion (including the official’s disclosures of facts and the lawyer’s advice on testimony) is normally protected by attorney–client privilege. By contrast, if the witness is not technically a client or agent (for example, an informant or a contractor’s employee who is simply cooperating), communications solely for witness preparation would not invoke attorney–client privilege because there is no attorney–client relationship with that person. In such situations the government typically cannot label the prep conversations as privileged communications of the “client.” Instead, protection must come, if at all, from the work-product doctrine.
The attorney work-product doctrine broadly protects materials prepared by attorneys in anticipation of litigation, including their notes, mental impressions, and strategies for witness examinations. This protection applies in both civil and criminal federal cases and can be asserted by government lawyers to shield their preparations for witness testimony. Crucially, work product is the attorney’s or agency’s privilege, not the witness’s; even if no attorney–client privilege exists with a witness, the lawyer’s own preparatory materials (memoranda, interview notes, document compilations, etc.) are generally not discoverable by the opposing side. For example, an internal DOJ trial-prep memo outlining questions for a witness or selecting key documents for the witness to review would be opinion work product reflecting counsel’s thought process and ordinarily protected.
If an attorney chooses certain documents from the case file to show a fact witness in preparation, that selection may itself be protected as opinion work product. The seminal Sporck v. Peil case held that a deposing lawyer could not compel identification of which documents a witness reviewed before a deposition, because revealing that subset would divulge the attorney’s strategic judgment about which evidence is important. The Third Circuit reasoned that an attorney’s compilation of documents for witness prep “reflects the mental impressions of counsel,” falling squarely under work-product protection. Many courts have followed this logic, recognizing that without work-product protection for such preparations, lawyers would be chilled in properly preparing witnesses. Some courts, however, take a case-by-case approach – before honoring a Sporck-type privilege claim, they may require a showing that identifying the documents would truly reveal counsel’s legal theories. In practice, federal courts generally lean toward treating witness-preparation materials (document selections, outlines, attorney notes) as protected work product, especially when they contain “opinion” work product (the attorney’s thoughts or tactics) which enjoys near-absolute protection.
A significant caveat is that if a witness is shown documents or statements to refresh their memory or prepare their testimony, the opposing party may gain a right to see those materials under Witness use of material Rule 612. Rule 612 provides that if a witness uses a writing to refresh recollection for the purpose of testifying, the court can require its production to an adverse party in the interest of fairness. Courts have often held that this rule overrides privilege or work-product objections – a “privilege will not protect” materials actually used by a witness to refresh memory, since the policy of effective cross-examination prevails. In other words, a fact witness cannot be prepped with a secret document and then shield it from the other side if that document influenced the witness’s testimony.
That said, Rule 612 is applied with some variability. If the memory-refreshing occurred before testifying (e.g., in a prep session days prior), the rule leaves it to the court’s discretion whether production is “necessary in the interests of justice.” Some courts take a strict approach (especially in civil cases), finding that any use of a document to prepare a witness triggers disclosure as a matter of course. This “bright-line” view (exemplified by cases like Ehrlich v. Howe) treats work product or privilege as waived once the witness reviews the material for testimony. Other courts adopt a balancing approach: they ask whether the document had an actual impact on the witness’s testimony and whether disclosure is truly needed for fair cross-examination or merely a fishing expedition. Under this approach, a court might first confirm that the witness’s review of the material was significant; if so, the court then weighs the value of disclosure against the harm to work-product interests, sometimes conducting an in camera review. In sum, a government attorney can generally assert work-product protection over witness-preparation communications and materials, but if those materials were used to refresh the witness’s recollection, the protection may be lost or overridden to allow the defense a fair opportunity to examine the witness.
(In criminal prosecutions, a similar dynamic exists, though governed by additional rules. The Jencks Act (18 U.S.C. § 3500) generally requires the government to disclose any prior statements of its witnesses after they testify, which could include written witness-preparation statements or interview notes adopted by the witness. Pure attorney work product (internal notes not shared with the witness) remains protected absent extraordinary need. Federal Rule of Evidence 612 explicitly defers to § 3500 in criminal cases, so a defendant’s ability to get pre-trial witness-preparation materials is limited. Still, if a government witness actually uses a writing to refresh memory on the stand, the court will order it produced to the defense. In short, the government in a healthcare fraud prosecution can invoke work-product doctrine to shield its prep sessions, but once a witness relies on a document to testify, the balance tips in favor of disclosure for impeachment.)
Communications between attorneys and expert witnesses (such as medical experts or economists in a healthcare fraud case) are generally not covered by attorney–client privilege, because the expert is typically a third-party consultant rather than the lawyer’s client. However, these communications are protected by the work-product doctrine, and recent federal rules have strengthened that protection. In 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 was amended to expressly shield most attorney–expert communications from discovery in civil cases. Draft expert reports and disclosures are also protected work product under Rule 26(b)(4)(B). The driving purpose of these amendments was to encourage candid collaboration with experts by safeguarding counsels’ mental impressions and legal strategies. Thus, in an FCA civil litigation, the Department of Justice can confidently correspond with its testifying expert without fear that those communications will be turned over to the opponent.
There are important exceptions. Rule 26(b)(4)(C) carves out three categories of attorney–expert communications that remain discoverable:
Outside of these categories, any other communications – e.g., discussing draft conclusions, alternative theories, or editorial feedback on the expert’s report – are protected as work product. In addition, the rule does not protect communications between the expert and third parties, nor the expert’s own files if not involving counsel. Opposing counsel is still free to probe the development, foundation, or basis of the expert’s opinions by other means. An expert’s test results or underlying data and methodologies are subject to discovery even if discussed with counsel. What Rule 26 prohibits is the routine fishing expedition into every email or note between the attorney and expert.
This was a significant development in federal practice: it rolled back the prior, more onerous regime that had treated virtually anything an expert reviewed – even attorney opinion work product – as fair game for discovery. The 2010 amendment created a “zone of protection” for attorney–expert communications, with the Advisory Committee explicitly rooting this protection in the work-product doctrine. Accordingly, even in circuits that previously allowed broad discovery of expert communications, the federal rule now uniformly grants work-product protection to most such communications, absent a showing of substantial need and undue hardship (the standard for overcoming work product).
In practice, this means that emails or meeting notes between DOJ attorneys and their expert witness are generally off-limits to the other side. The defense will receive the expert’s final report and the foundational materials the expert relied upon, but not the attorney’s preparatory commentary or drafts. If the expert happens to be a government employee (for example, a CDC scientist testifying as an expert), communications in her expert capacity are treated the same as above – usually as protected work product rather than attorney–client advice. Criminal cases do not have an exact counterpart to Rule 26(b)(4), but similar principles apply: prosecutors must disclose the substance of expert opinions before trial (Fed. R. Crim. P. 16), yet they are not ordinarily required to hand over communications with experts or draft reports. Courts recognize these as core work product in the criminal context as well, unless due-process considerations (Brady material) or specific rules compel disclosure.
In federal healthcare-fraud and False Claims Act litigation, the government may assert both attorney–client privilege and work-product protection to shield its witness-preparation efforts.
The practical takeaway is that federal law allows the government to prepare its witnesses with candid communications and materials, under the umbrella of privilege or work-product protection, while still ensuring opposing parties receive the information necessary for fair cross-examination.
Understanding how the government applies attorney client privilege and work product protections is essential for effectively challenging overbroad claims and ensuring a fair litigation process. At Chapman Law Group, we defend persons and entities involved in federal criminal investigations and False Claims Act litigation. With over 150 acquittals, and $550 million saved for clients, our experience allows us to identify when the government is improperly shielding witness preparation materials or misusing privilege doctrines. If you’re facing federal scrutiny or having trouble navigating complex discovery issues in a fraud case, call us today. Our team is ready to help protect you or your clients rights, and build a strong defense.
Individuals depicted or heard in the foregoing media appearance or images may no longer be current attorneys, employees, members or affiliates with Chapman & Associates, PC or The Chapman Law Group (the “Firm”), including Ronald W. Chapman, II who is no longer affiliated with the Firm. For a current listing of the attorneys and services available with the Chapman Law Group, please see https://chapmanlawgroup.com/team.
"*" indicates required fields
Our federal criminal defense team helped secure a victory in the United States vs. Bothra case, equaling a $450M Acquittal. Here’s how they..
A Kentucky pain physician is acquitted of a nine-count indictment, including Unlawful Distribution and Health Care Fraud.
A Medicare plan administrator sought $250,000 from an ophthalmology practice after reimbursing incorrectly, but the arbitrator rejected the argument, calling its fee schedule “incomprehensible.”
