By Tort Law Team 
Corporate counsel face a recurring tension during high-stakes probes: how to gather facts and obtain candid legal advice without later surrendering those materials in civil discovery. A single misstep on purpose, documentation, or disclosure can expose interview notes, analyses, and reports that plaintiffs or regulators eagerly seek. The Sixth Circuit’s decision in In re FirstEnergy Corp., 154 F.4th 431 (6th Cir. 2025), restores clarity and predictability on this front. This article examines the court’s core holdings on attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, explains why later business use of investigative findings does not destroy protection, and provides actionable steps for safeguarding privilege during internal corporate investigations.
Background of the FirstEnergy Investigations and Litigation
In July 2020 the Department of Justice unsealed a criminal complaint charging former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder with racketeering offenses tied to House Bill 6. The complaint implicated an unnamed company, widely understood to be FirstEnergy, in a scheme involving millions in contributions that helped secure a multi-billion-dollar bailout for nuclear plants. FirstEnergy received related grand jury subpoenas. Its stock price fell approximately 45 percent the next day. Shareholder securities actions, regulatory inquiries by the SEC, the Ohio Attorney General, and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, and further civil suits quickly followed.
Within a week FirstEnergy retained Jones Day to investigate the allegations and advise on responses to the criminal investigation and subpoenas. An independent committee of the board retained Squire Patton Boggs to conduct a parallel internal investigation into the same allegations. Both firms interviewed witnesses, reviewed records, prepared legal analyses of potential criminal and civil exposure, and reported findings and advice to the company and board.
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions later sought “all previously withheld documents” related to both investigations and testimony about them. A special master recommended production. The district court adopted the recommendation, concluding the investigations served primarily business purposes because FirstEnergy later used the results for human-resources decisions, public relations, and auditor communications. FirstEnergy sought a writ of mandamus. The Sixth Circuit granted the petition and vacated the production order.
Core Holdings on Attorney-Client Privilege
The Sixth Circuit grounded its analysis in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981). In Upjohn the Supreme Court held that the attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between corporate counsel and employees when the company seeks legal advice concerning potential liability. The privilege exists to encourage full and frank disclosure so that counsel can provide informed advice.
Applying that framework, the court found FirstEnergy and its board hired outside counsel “to secure legal advice” through internal investigations into potential criminal and civil wrongdoing. Jones Day examined records and advised on responses to the Justice Department investigation. Squire provided investigative findings, legal analyses, and assessments of potential liability. These communications concerned what acts occurred, whether they were illegal, and what consequences might follow. They therefore constituted requested legal advice.
The court rejected the district court’s focus on later business use. “What matters under the attorney-client privilege is whether a company seeks legal advice, not what it later does with that advice.” Companies routinely consult counsel about problems that also carry business implications: compensation plans, potential sales, bankruptcy options, or employee terminations. Parallel business purposes do not convert legal advice into non-legal advice. The court observed that it will be the rare company facing significant legal risk that lacks any concurrent business considerations.
This holding reaffirms that the primary-purpose inquiry looks to the reason the company sought counsel at the outset, not to subsequent decisions informed by the advice. Privilege attaches to the confidential communications seeking and providing that advice.
Work Product Doctrine Protections
The work product doctrine under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3) protects documents and tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Sixth Circuit applies a “because of” test: materials receive protection if they were created because of the party’s reasonable anticipation of litigation rather than for ordinary business purposes.
FirstEnergy’s investigations met that standard. The company and board anticipated government investigations, civil litigation, and regulatory proceedings immediately after the Householder complaint and subpoenas. The stock-price drop intensified expectations of securities claims. Claimants themselves acknowledged that no internal investigations would have occurred but for the Department of Justice investigation. Within weeks the anticipated risks became actual risks: multiple shareholder suits and parallel regulatory probes. The investigations therefore produced materials because of actual legal and regulatory threats.
The court emphasized that the driving force was the legal threat, not routine business review. Work product protection therefore covered the investigative files, notes, and analyses.
Waiver Arguments and Limited Disclosures
Plaintiffs argued that FirstEnergy waived protection through disclosures of investigative conclusions to its independent auditor and limited statements to the government or civil litigants. The Sixth Circuit rejected broad waiver claims. Divulging “bare conclusions” from an investigation, as opposed to the substance of legal advice or attorney mental impressions, does not waive the privilege. Sharing certain materials with an independent auditor under controlled circumstances does not automatically destroy either attorney-client privilege or work product protection when the bulk of overlapping information is already discoverable or consists of non-privileged facts.
The decision underscores the importance of careful, limited disclosures. Counsel must distinguish between underlying facts (generally not privileged) and the attorney’s legal analysis, strategy, and impressions (protected). Documented protocols for what is shared, with whom, and under what confidentiality expectations help preserve the protections.
Practical Implications for Corporate Counsel and Compliance Leaders
The FirstEnergy ruling strengthens the ability of corporations to conduct thorough internal investigations without automatic exposure of counsel’s work in subsequent civil discovery. It does not, however, create automatic or absolute protection. Courts still examine purpose, structure, and conduct of the investigation.
Consider a realistic scenario. A publicly traded company receives a government subpoena and simultaneous whistleblower allegations of accounting irregularities. Management retains outside counsel to investigate. Counsel interviews employees under Upjohn warnings, reviews documents, prepares interview memoranda, and delivers a privileged report assessing legal risk and recommending remediation steps. Months later the company terminates certain employees, revises public disclosures, and shares high-level conclusions with its auditors so that financial statements can be certified. Under the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning, the later business and disclosure uses do not convert the original legal-advice purpose into a purely business purpose. The interview notes, analyses, and report remain protected provided the investigation was structured from the start to obtain legal advice in anticipation of litigation or enforcement.
The ruling also highlights the value of independent investigative counsel. When the board retains separate counsel from the company’s regular counsel, the independence can reinforce the legal purpose and reduce arguments that the probe served only management’s business objectives.
Actionable Guidelines to Safeguard Privilege and Work Product
Corporate legal teams and investigation leads should adopt disciplined practices consistent with the FirstEnergy principles.
First, document the legal purpose at the outset. Retention letters and board resolutions should state that counsel is engaged to investigate potential wrongdoing, assess criminal and civil exposure, and provide legal advice on responses to government inquiries and anticipated litigation. Avoid language that frames the engagement primarily as a business review or public-relations exercise.
Second, structure the investigation under counsel’s direction. Outside counsel (or properly functioning in-house counsel acting in a legal capacity) should control interviews, document collection, and analysis. Use Upjohn warnings that clearly inform employees the lawyers represent the company, the interview is for legal advice, communications are privileged, and the company controls the privilege. Keep contemporaneous records showing counsel directed the fact-gathering for legal purposes.
Third, separate legal analysis from pure fact summaries when possible. Privilege protects the communications seeking and providing advice; underlying facts remain discoverable. Clear labeling of memoranda as attorney work product and legal advice helps.
Fourth, manage subsequent use carefully. Business decisions informed by legal advice do not destroy privilege, but oversharing the advice itself can create waiver risk. When communicating with auditors, regulators, or the board on non-privileged matters, limit disclosures to bare conclusions or non-privileged facts and document the limited scope. Consider whether a limited waiver agreement or common-interest arrangement is appropriate in multi-party settings.
Fifth, involve the board or an independent committee for significant investigations. Board-level engagement, as in FirstEnergy, reinforces that the company sought legal advice at the highest level regarding institutional risk.
Sixth, train investigation teams on privilege hygiene. Interview notes should reflect legal purpose. Privilege logs must accurately describe the basis for withholding. Avoid mixing pure business consultants into the privileged core of the investigation without clear Kovel-type arrangements where appropriate.
Seventh, plan for multi-front exposure. Securities class actions, derivative suits, government investigations, and regulatory inquiries often proceed in parallel. Coordinate strategy so that limited disclosures in one forum do not inadvertently waive protection in another.
These steps align with the Sixth Circuit’s emphasis on the reason counsel was retained and the contemporaneous legal risk that prompted the investigation.
How the Ruling Affects Law Firm Reports and Internal Investigation Practices
Law firm reports prepared during privileged investigations receive strong protection when they contain legal analysis and advice. The FirstEnergy decision confirms that such reports do not lose protection merely because the company later relies on them for personnel decisions, disclosure judgments, or auditor discussions. Counsel drafting reports should continue to frame them as confidential legal advice, mark them appropriately, and limit distribution to those who need the advice for corporate decision-making within the privileged circle.
The decision also supports the continued vitality of independent investigative counsel. When a board or special committee retains its own firm, the separation helps demonstrate that the investigation serves the company’s legal interests rather than any single executive’s business agenda. This structure proved important in FirstEnergy and remains a best practice in high-stakes matters involving potential senior management misconduct.
For white-collar defense and regulatory enforcement defense teams, the ruling reduces the risk that a well-conducted internal investigation will become a roadmap for plaintiffs. It encourages thorough fact development under privilege so that the company can make informed decisions about cooperation, remediation, and litigation strategy.
Pitfalls to Avoid After FirstEnergy
Even with this favorable precedent, certain practices still invite challenge. Framing an investigation solely as a “root-cause analysis” or “compliance review” without clear legal-advice language weakens the privilege claim. Failing to give proper Upjohn warnings can create confusion about the purpose of interviews and the scope of privilege. Broad, uncontrolled sharing of detailed legal analyses with third parties outside any protected relationship remains a waiver risk. Treating the investigation as ordinary course business rather than a response to concrete legal threats undermines work product claims.
District courts outside the Sixth Circuit are not bound by the decision, yet the opinion’s reliance on Supreme Court precedent and its clear articulation of principle make it persuasive authority nationwide. Counsel should still tailor arguments to the governing circuit’s existing case law while citing FirstEnergy for its reaffirmation of bedrock principles.
Broader Precedent and the Path Forward
The Sixth Circuit described the protections as “bedrock privilege and work-product principles.” It granted the extraordinary remedy of mandamus because the district court’s order threatened to abandon nearly half a century of jurisprudence and to discourage full and frank communication between companies and their attorneys when investigating potential wrongdoing. The decision therefore carries weight beyond its immediate facts.
Corporate counsel, chief compliance officers, and internal investigation leads should review existing investigation protocols against the FirstEnergy standards. Update engagement letters, board resolutions, and training materials. When a new high-stakes matter arises, document the legal purpose early and structure the work accordingly. These steps maximize the likelihood that courts will uphold the protections the Sixth Circuit restored.
Conclusion
The FirstEnergy attorney-client privilege ruling confirms that companies may retain counsel to investigate potential wrongdoing, obtain legal advice, and prepare materials in anticipation of litigation without automatically forfeiting those protections when the advice later informs business decisions. Privilege turns on the purpose for which advice was sought. Work product turns on the reasonable anticipation of litigation that drove the investigation. Careful structuring, documentation, and disclosure management remain essential. Corporate legal teams that follow these principles can conduct thorough, candid investigations while preserving the confidentiality the law intends to protect. Consult experienced counsel familiar with the governing circuit’s privilege law when designing or defending an internal investigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does later use of investigation findings for business decisions waive attorney-client privilege under the FirstEnergy ruling?
No. The Sixth Circuit held that what matters is whether the company sought legal advice, not what it later does with that advice. Parallel business purposes are common and do not destroy privilege.
How does the ruling interact with Upjohn warnings?
The decision reaffirms the Upjohn framework. Proper warnings that the lawyers represent the company, that the interview seeks information for legal advice, and that the company controls the privilege remain best practice and support the privilege claim.
Can materials shared with independent auditors still receive protection?
Limited disclosures of bare conclusions or non-privileged facts to auditors do not automatically waive privilege or work product protection according to the Sixth Circuit. Controlled, documented sharing is safer than broad disclosure of legal analysis.
Does the work product doctrine require actual litigation to have commenced?
No. Materials prepared because of a reasonable anticipation of litigation qualify. In FirstEnergy the court found both anticipated and actual legal and regulatory threats sufficient.
Is independent investigative counsel required?
Not strictly required, but the FirstEnergy facts involved separate counsel for the company and the board. Independence can strengthen the demonstration of legal purpose, especially when senior management conduct is under review.
What is the primary risk if an investigation is poorly structured?
A court may conclude the predominant purpose was ordinary business review rather than legal advice, leading to compelled production of notes, analyses, and reports.
Does the ruling bind courts outside the Sixth Circuit?
It is binding only within the Sixth Circuit, yet its reliance on Supreme Court precedent and clear reasoning make it persuasive elsewhere. Counsel should still argue under the specific circuit’s existing standards.
You May Also Like: Merger vs Acquisition Explained: Structures, Legal Differences & Tax Impacts