IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Corporate Attorney-Client Privilege: Who Represents the Corporation?


  • Baum Ido

    (Hamburg University)


The corporate lawyer-client privilege is increasingly controversial. Courts assert that the privilege promotes corporate compliance with the law as long as it is restricted to communications in furtherance of legal advice. This article assumes the privilege increases the probability that a corporation will escape liability. Courts can apply various tests to determine whether the agent who communicated with the corporate attorney can be defined as a representative of the corporation. The most restrictive test, the control group test, has been rejected by most American jurisdictions, but it has recently re-emerged in the United Kingdom. The author proposes that this test motivates corporations to restructure their optimal internal decision-making processes in order to squeeze into the privilege. When plaintiffs are uninformed about the internal organization of a corporate defendant, even corporations that cannot squeeze into the test have an incentive to mimic the behavior of privileged corporations, and consequently pursue socially harmful actions. These findings are supported by case law from control group jurisdictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Baum Ido, 2007. "Corporate Attorney-Client Privilege: Who Represents the Corporation?," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 61-81, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:3:y:2007:i:1:n:5

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Shavell, Steven, 1988. "Legal Advice about Contemplated Acts: The Decision to Obtain Advice, Its Social Desirability, and Protection of Confidentiality," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(1), pages 123-150, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:3:y:2007:i:1:n:5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.