Privilege and Work Product
Attorney-Client Privilege
Dual-purpose communications convey or seek both legal advice and business guidance. Courts apply differing tests: the primary purpose test asks which purpose predominated, while a significant purpose approach protects communications where legal advice was one significant purpose.
The question recurs with in-house counsel.
Alternative Names:
Mixed-Purpose Communication, Dual Purpose Document
Why it Matters?
In-house counsel generate dual-purpose communications constantly because their role blends legal and business functions, which makes this the most contested privilege issue in corporate discovery. The practical control is structural: separating legal advice into distinct communications rather than embedding it in business correspondence, and having in-house counsel identify when they are providing legal rather than business input.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What tests apply to dual-purpose communications?
How can the problem be reduced?
