Congressional practitioners will be interested in this article in the Journal of Law and Politics on the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine in congressional proceedings. (Bradley Bondi, “No Secrets Allowed: Congress’s Treatment and Mistreatment of the Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work-Product Protection in Congressional Investigations and Contempt Proceedings”). As the title implies, Bondi is critical of Congress’s assertion of the authority to disregard the attorney-client or other common law privileges. While he concedes that Congress, like the British Parliament, may have the power to disregard privileges in inherent contempt proceedings (ie, where Congress uses its own contempt authority to try and imprison a contumacious witness), he argues that the situation is different with respect to statutory contempt proceedings under 2 U.S.C. § 192.
Bondi uses the legislative history of the statute, which was enacted in 1857, to show that Congress itself was uncertain of the default rule that applied in congressional proceedings. Some legislators assumed that Congress was bound to respect common-law privileges, while others believed that it had the power to overrule them. He also points to the fact that Congress has generally respected the attorney-client privilege since the enactment of the statute, although the relevance of this practice to the interpretation of the statute is unclear.
If a court were faced with the question of whether the statute permits prosecution of a witness who asserts an otherwise valid attorney-client privilege (ie, a claim of privilege that would be recognized at common law or in judicial proceedings), its conclusion would likely be dictated by the presumption that it starts with. Since the statute itself is silent on its applicability to claims of attorney-client privilege, the court might hold that the statute should not be construed in derogation of a firmly established common law privilege. Alternatively, the court might start with the presumption that the statute was intended to preserve the traditional legislative authority to overrule privileges and therefore reach the opposite conclusion.
Given the difficulty of this question, however, a court is likely to look for ways to avoid deciding it. And there is likely to be an easy way for it to do so. Under current congressional procedures, while a witness can argue his privilege claim to a congressional committee, there is no way to present the claim to the full House or Senate prior to being held in contempt. But if the power to disregard privileges exists, it certainly inheres in the full legislative body, not in committees. Thus, if a witness has a judicially valid claim of privilege, he can argue that it was a violation of due process to hold him in contempt without first giving him an opportunity to argue the claim before the full legislative body.