Corporate law firms nationwide were relieved as attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine remained safeguarded. In a recent decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had temporarily stayed a district court’s decision requiring the disclosure of investigative materials related to the FirstEnergy Corporation (“FirstEnergy”) bribery scandal (“Scandal”). (Debra Weiss, ABA Journal). After the Scandal implicated FirstEnergy in funneling money to politicians to secure the passage of Ohio House Bill 6, the company’s board of directors hired the law firms of Jones Day and Squire Patton Boggs to internally investigate the allegations. (Alison Frankel, Reuters). The district court reasoned that because FirstEnergy sought counsel’s advice for both business and legal purposes, the communication did not fall under attorney-client privilege or the attorney-work-product doctrine. In re FirstEnergy Corp., No. 24-3654, 2025 WL 2335978, at 2* (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 2025). The Sixth Circuit disagreed, stating "Th[is] approach gets it backwards” and found that communications produced by law firms hired for the purpose of conducting internal investigations are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney-work-product doctrine. Id. This post examines how the Sixth Circuit addressed the privacy issue raised by the district court’s decision and analyzes the ruling’s ramifications for corporate internal investigations, as well as its broader effects on large corporate firms and law firm business practices.

Read More