PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 110-280.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 4, 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 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.
People & committees
Sen. Specter, Arlen [R-PA] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 110-280.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S183)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S181-183)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.186 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 S.186 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 S.186 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 S.186 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.