Jotwell

The Attorney-Client Privilege Goes to Washington

Mar 4, 2024 Christine BartholomewCourts Law

David Rapallo, House Rules: Congress and the Attorney-Client Privilege, 100 Wash. U. L. Rev. 455 (2022).

The 118th Congress has pursued a robust investigatory agenda, probing topics from the origins of COVID-19 to Hunter Biden to “greed in the pharmaceutical industry.” Such investigations are hardly new. But the future utility of such investigations may depend on a cryptic aside made by Chief Justice Roberts in the Court’s 2020 decision in Trump v. Mazars. Roberts stated that recipients of congressional subpoenas “have long been understood to retain common law and constitutional privileges,” including the ability to assert the attorney-client privilege. Scholars have spilled significant ink over the significance—if any—of this statement. In House Rules: Congress and the Attorney-Client Privilege, David Rapallo examines how to best understand Roberts’s statement. In doing so, he delves into an underexamined corner of evidence scholarship: the application of privileges outside of judicial proceedings.

Mazars did not involve an assertion of privilege. Consequently, as Rapallo explains, some scholars dismiss Roberts’ statement as “nothing more than erroneous and ill-informed dictum.” Others view the statement as affording subpoena recipients absolute protection for attorney-client communications, representing a “sweeping change.” It would mean the judiciary—not Congress—decides the evidentiary rules that apply to congressional investigations. While Roberts discussed only the attorney-client privilege, continuing down that road could require Congress to recognize other privileges or evidentiary rules rooted in common law.

Rapallo threads these two extremes by suggesting a third path to understand Roberts’ statement: “[r]ecipients of congressional subpoenas who are compelled to produce information to Congress retain their right to assert the attorney-client privilege in other venues.” For those versed primarily in how privileges work in judicial proceedings, the notion that the attorney-client privilege may not apply to all investigatory proceedings may seem surprising. But Rapallo makes a compelling case from a somewhat surprising starting point: separation of powers. Continue reading "The Attorney-Client Privilege Goes to Washington"

Empire of the Rule of Law

Mar 1, 2024 Taisu ZhangLegal History

Christian R. Burset, Redefining the Rule of Law: An Eighteenth-Century Case Study, 70 Am. J. Compara. L. 657 (2022).

Taisu Zhang

There is a traditional narrative about law and legality that scholars have told, in various forms, since the late nineteenth century.¹ In this telling, generalized, formal law emerged as an institutional response to sociopolitical flattening and socioeconomic distancing. As societies transitioned from “status to contract,” abandoning traditional hierarchies in favor of ideals of individual equality, formal equality before the law became more attractive.

Similarly, as economic activities expanded beyond the horizon of closely knit social networks, the institutional need for stranger-oriented transactions and collaboration created immense demand for formal legal institutions that supplied uniformity and reliability across highly diverse socioeconomic terrain.² Correspondingly, new ideas of “law,” “legality,” and “the rule of law” emerged.

What has too often been missing from these narratives is a compelling account of the transition itself: how socioeconomic need translated into concrete political, intellectual, institutional change. The idea that demand produces supply over the long term may well be correct, but the specific mechanisms of that supply nonetheless deserve careful study, not least because it tends to affect the final institutional product in both form and substance.

In Redefining the Rule of Law: An Eighteenth-Century Case Study, Christian R. Burset provides a precisely argued, expertly documented, and intellectually sophisticated account of one such mechanism. Through an examination of legal-political dialogue in the eighteenth-century British empire, Burset demonstrates that the specific experience of colonialism generated much of the intellectual and political energy behind modern “rule of law” ideals that have gained both dialogical and institutional dominance in the Anglosphere. Continue reading "Empire of the Rule of Law"