S. 186 (110th): Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2007

Introduced:
Jan 04, 2007 (110th Congress, 2007–2009)
Status:
Died (Referred to Committee)
See Instead:

H.R. 3013 (same title)
Passed House — Nov 13, 2007

Sponsor
Arlen Specter
Senator from Pennsylvania
Party
Democrat
Text
Read Text »
Last Updated
Jan 04, 2007
Length
7 pages
Related Bills
S. 445 (111th) was a re-introduction of this bill in a later Congress.

Referred to Committee
Last Action: Feb 13, 2009

H.R. 3013 (identical)

Passed House
Last Action: Nov 13, 2007

 
Status

This bill was introduced on January 4, 2007, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.

Progress
Introduced Jan 04, 2007
Referred to Committee Jan 04, 2007
 
Full Title

A bill to provide appropriate protection to attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product.

Summary

No summaries available.

Cosponsors
11 cosponsors (8D, 3R) (show)
Committees

Senate Judiciary

The committee chair determines whether a bill will move past the committee stage.

 
Primary Source

THOMAS.gov (The Library of Congress)

GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here. Data comes via the congress project.

Widget

Get a bill status widget for your website »

Citation

Click a format for a citation suggestion:

Notes

S. stands for Senate bill.

A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate in identical form and then be signed by the president to become law.

The bill’s title was written by its sponsor.

GovTrack’s Bill Summary

We don’t have a summary available yet.

Library of Congress Summary

The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress.


1/4/2007--Introduced.
Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2007 - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit any U.S. agent or attorney, in any federal investigation or criminal or civil enforcement matter, from demanding, requesting, or conditioning treatment on the disclosure by an organization (or affiliated person) of any communication protected by the attorney-client privilege or any attorney work product.
Prohibits a U.S. agent or attorney from conditioning a civil or criminal charging decision relating to an organization (or affiliated person) on one or more specified actions, or from using one or more such actions as a factor in determining whether an organization or affiliated person is cooperating with the government.
Numbers among the actions a U.S. agent or attorney may not use as a charging decision condition or a cooperation-determining factor:
(1) any valid assertion of the attorney-client privilege or privilege for attorney work product;
(2) the provision of counsel to, or contribution to the legal defense fees or expenses of, an employee of the organization;
(3) entry into a joint-defense, information-sharing, or common-interest agreement with an employee of the organization if the organization determines it has a common interest in defending against the investigation or enforcement matter;
(4) the sharing of relevant information with an employee; or
(5) a failure to terminate an employee's employment, or otherwise sanction an employee, because of the employee's decision to exercise his or her constitutional rights or other legal protections in response to a government request.
Prohibits a U.S. agent or attorney from demanding or requesting that an organization or an affiliated person not take any such action.

House Republican Conference Summary

The summary below was written by the House Republican Conference, which is the caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives.


No summary available.

House Democratic Caucus Summary

The House Democratic Caucus does not provide summaries of bills.

So, yes, we display the House Republican Conference’s summaries when available even if we do not have a Democratic summary available. That’s because we feel it is better to give you as much information as possible, even if we cannot provide every viewpoint.

We’ll be looking for a source of summaries from the other side in the meanwhile.

Use the comment space below for discussion of the merits of S. 186 (110th) with other GovTrack users.
Your comments are not read by Congressional staff.

comments powered by Disqus