PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Nov 13, 2007
Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2007 - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit any U.S. agent or attorney, in any federal investigation or criminal or civil enforcement matter, from demanding, requesting, or conditioning treatment ("giving cooperation credit") on the disclosure by an organization (or affiliated person) of any communication protected by the attorney-client privilege or any attorney work product.
Prohibits a U.S. agent or attorney from conditioning a civil or criminal charging decision relating to an organization (or affiliated person) on one or more specified actions, or from using one or more such actions as a factor in determining whether an organization or affiliated person is cooperating with the government.
Numbers among the actions a U.S. agent or attorney may not use as a charging decision condition or a cooperation-determining factor: (1) any valid assertion of the attorney-client privilege or privilege for attorney work product; (2) the provision of counsel to, or contribution to the legal defense fees or expenses of, an employee of the organization; (3) entry into a joint-defense, information-sharing, or common-interest agreement with an employee of the organization if the organization determines it has a common interest in defending against the investigation or enforcement matter; (4) the sharing of relevant information with an employee; or (5) a failure to terminate an employee's employment, or otherwise sanction an employee, because of the employee's decision to exercise his or her constitutional rights or other legal protections in response to a government request.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits a U.S. agent or attorney from demanding or requesting that an organization or an affiliated person not take any such action.
Declares that this Act does not affect any other federal statute that may authorize, in the course of an examination or inspection, a U.S. agent or attorney to require or compel the production of attorney-client privileged material or attorney work product.
Declares that the prohibition against conditioning a charging decision does not apply to charging an organization (or affiliated person) for certain conduct under a federal law which makes that conduct in itself an offense. Specifies as conduct which may under federal law constitute an offense, and so be exempted from this prohibition: (1) the provision of counsel to, or contribution to the legal defense fees or expenses of, an employee of the organization; (2) entry into a joint defense, information sharing, or common interest agreement with an employee of that organization if the organization determines it has a common interest in defending against the investigation or enforcement matter; and (3) the sharing of information relevant to the investigation or enforcement matter with an employee of the organization.
People & committees
Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3] · D–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H13562-13563)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H13562-13563)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3013.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H13562-13564)
Mr. Scott (VA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 276.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-445.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-445.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3013 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3013 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3013 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3013 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.