Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Government Contracts Advisor

Industry insight & analysis

open menu close menu

Government Contracts Advisor

  • Home
  • About us

Guarding The Privilege: Fourth Circuit Reverses District Court Decision Finding Disclosure Pursuant to the Mandatory Disclosure Rule Waived Attorney-Client Privilege

By Phillip Seckman and Joe Martinez
April 9, 2020
  • Government Contracts
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
logo

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently, and importantly, reestablished the status quo for government contractor disclosures made pursuant to the Mandatory Disclosure Rule (MDR), while also providing further insight into when a disclosure could waive privilege. Specifically, the Fourth Circuit, in a non-precedential decision, overturned an unsettling decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that certain disclosures a government contractor made pursuant to the MDR constituted a waiver of the attorney-client privilege.

In reaching the conclusion that the contractor’s disclosure pursuant to the MDR did not waive the attorney-client privilege, the Fourth Circuit distinguished between disclosures based on the advice of an attorney (not a waiver of privilege) and disclosures that divulge the underlying attorney-client communication itself (a waiver of privilege). The Fourth Circuit also identified using strong dicta that its decision is consistent with the purpose of the MDR. In specifically focusing on the MDR, the Fourth Circuit stated that:

  • “requiring [the contractor] to produce privileged materials is particularly injurious here, where [the contractor] acted pursuant to a regulatory scheme mandating disclosure of potential wrongdoing. Government contractors should not fear waiving attorney-client privilege in these circumstances”; and
  • “the district court’s decision has potentially far-reaching consequences for companies subject to [the MDR] and other similar disclosure requirements. We struggle to envision how any company could disclose credible evidence of unlawful activity without also disclosing its conclusion, often based on the advice of its counsel, that such activity has occurred. More likely, companies would err on the side of making vague or incomplete disclosures, a result patently at odds with the policy objectives of the regulatory disclosure regime at issue in this case.”

While contractors must remain vigilant about the level of information disclosed pursuant to MDR and ensure the disclosure do not divulge the underlying attorney-client communication, this decision should provide comfort to the government contract community. Contractors, pursuant to the MDR, should be able to inform their government customers in sufficient detail of the contractor’s general conclusions as to whether conduct satisfies the credible evidence standard under the MDR. This, in turn, should enable contractors and the government to preserve resources and enable cost-savings to the extent additional investigations are unnecessary. 

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Attorney-Client Privilege, FAR 52.203-13, government contracts, Mandatory Disclosure Rule
Phillip Seckman

About Phillip Seckman

Phillip Seckman represents clients concerning government and commercial contract matters. His practice spans a broad range of subjects related to federal procurement law, state and local procurement law, and complex federal regulatory issues. He concentrates his practice in the areas of commercial item acquisitions, GSA schedule contracting, cybersecurity, compliance, internal investigations, and bid protests (both federal and state). A significant component of his practice involves government contract cost allowability, proper cost accounting, and contract cost and pricing issues.

All posts Full bio

Joe Martinez

About Joe Martinez

Joseph G. Martinez’s practice focuses on all aspects of government contracts litigation and corporate counseling with an emphasis on bid protest litigation, contract and subcontract formation and pricing issues, and complex claims litigation. Joe is also a member of Dentons’ Political Law, Ethics and Disclosure team and counsels clients regarding federal, state and local election law, campaign finance, ethics matters, and assists government contractors in navigating the intersection of law, politics and public policy.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Data and Software Rights, Patent Rights and Cybersecurity
  • Government Contracts

2017 Cybersecurity in Government Contracts Series: Developments and Practical Steps for Compliance

By Dentons Government Contracts Group
  • Government Contracts

September Legislative and Regulatory Update

By Steven Masiello, Joe Martinez, Chris Fetzer, and DeAnna R. Hamilton
  • Government Contracts
  • International Government Contracting and Disputes

Final Rule issued for USML Category XI (Military Electronics)

By Jason Silverman

About Dentons

Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site