Congress Wants to Talk to Your Client—Now What?
Put aside the litigation playbook and keep in mind these tips.
February 28, 2020 at 03:00 PM
5 minute read
As we've seen recently with the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, congressional investigations are very different than matters with which most lawyers are familiar. They are a blend of civil litigation, criminal inquiry, academic constitutional debate, public relations and politics. The litigation playbook most lawyers follow does not apply and actually can be counterproductive.
So what should you do if Congress wants to talk to your client? Here are some insider tips.
The Rules of the Road
Once a lawyer has determined that a client will respond to a request for testimony or information, either voluntarily or because a subpoena was served, the next step is to contact the congressional staff.
Remember that the ordinary rules of civil discovery don't apply—the rules of judicial procedure are not applicable to congressional inquiries. There is no assigned magistrate judge to call to pare back document requests. After all, Congress isn't bound by the courts' common law practices and isn't obligated to recognize protections like attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other nonconstitutional privileges.
Confidentiality of sensitive documents is a worthy concern for clients. Fortunately, Congress generally respects the rights of parties to keep legal advice confidential and rarely will compel a party to produce clearly privileged documents.
Still, Congress has nearly limitless power to investigate anything within the "legitimate legislative sphere," and based on the separation of powers doctrine, the federal judiciary has "the duty of not lightly interfering with Congress' exercise of its legitimate powers." It follows that courts are unable to order a congressional committee to refrain from publishing congressionally subpoenaed documents, as congressional members are legislatively immune under the Constitution. This means clients have no effectual relief for unwanted disclosure of their secrets.
This doesn't mean clients should ignore congressional authority in order to maintain the confidentiality of privileged information, but lawyers should recognize that they are relying on the discretion of the staffers to protect a client's interests. Most committee counsel staff are sophisticated and generally will be understanding with privilege claims. Try to broker terms for privilege logs, redactions and, if necessary, the appointment of a special master to review withheld documents.
However, be judicious and remember Congress is its own branch of government with its own rules and that your client is essentially asking for an accommodation under those rules. Committee counsel initially may challenge an assertion of privilege or protection. A discovery dispute letter that would peel the varnish off the desk of opposing counsel would be the wrong response here. Instead, make a phone call, introduce yourself, and negotiate a mutually satisfactory result.
Congress has little desire to see the scope of common law privileges tested in the courts. The courts are equally quick to dodge these questions. Try to learn what the committee counsel's goals are for the hearing and see if your client can meet those goals, or at least in part. Request an audience to discuss concerns about breadth, privilege or other sensitive issues.
Giving Testimony
If testimony is requested, again, remember that this is not civil litigation. Respect matters. Trying to substitute lower-level employees when the client's CEO or chairman is requested for a public hearing often is viewed as disrespectful by committees, even if the employee has a better handle on an issue. If testimony will be given in closed session or in deposition with staff, identifying and suggesting the most knowledgeable person will be better received.
Furthermore, be thoughtful with scheduling requests to avoid the perception of having more important things to do than appearing before Congress. Regardless of the setting, remind witnesses that false statements to Congress are crimes, whether or not a statement is given under oath. If your client lies in an unsworn setting, it will matter little for your client that the charge is a "false statement to Congress" rather than "perjury."
For public hearings, help your client draft an opening statement at the full length allowed under committee rules. Hearings are of limited duration, and every minute spent talking from a prepared script is a minute not spent answering questions that could be contentious. Also, research the members of the committee to try to predict their interests and possible areas of inquiry.
A few days prior, run a mock hearing and show videos of successful public hearings to familiarize your client with the process. Public hearings and congressional depositions and interviews are very different from depositions or trial testimony in court. For example, the attorney generally cannot object, interrupt questioning or "redirect." Yet, these differences work to your client's advantage, too.
You can suggest favorable questions to "friendly" staffers or committee members. Long, narrative-style answers to short questions are generally allowed in all but the most adversarial settings. The time for a hearing is finite, so prepare your client to give lengthier answers to easy, favorable or noncontroversial questions, which you ideally have shared in advance. Consider preparing answers or opening remarks that address the anticipated difficult questions in keeping with the nature of the proceeding (public or closed-door). Also remember that one-word answers can make even a truthful witness look suspicious in a congressional setting, which any resulting media coverage may regrettably also reflect.
If Congress wants to talk to your client, nuances of the situation will depend on the subject, politics and timing. The most important point for outside-the-Beltway lawyers is to recognize that your typical litigation playbook may need to be modified, if not tossed aside.
Robert N. Driscoll leads the Washington, D.C., office for McGlinchey Stafford and serves as co-chair of its white-collar/government investigations group.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllProtecting Attorney-Client Privilege in the Modern Age of Communications
6 minute readLingering Questions at Supreme Court About Climate Change Litigation Need Resolution
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Sri Lanka Granted Stay of Litigation Over Defaulted Sovereign Bond Debt
- 2AI Adoption, Data Center Building Boom Opening More Doors for Cybercriminals, Many of Them Teenagers
- 3Mayor's Advisory Committee To Hold Hearing on Fitness of Judicial Candidates
- 4Are New York City Housing Providers Ready for the Fair Chance for Housing Act?
- 5Litigator of the (Past) Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250