Background

In the event of suspected violations of the law or other irregularities, companies conduct internal investigations to determine and analyze the relevant facts. These internal investigations are often led by outside counsel. In parallel, criminal and regulatory authorities may conduct their own investigations into the same matters. To further their investigations, they may request documents and information prepared and collected in the course of the internal investigation, including investigation reports and supporting documents. In particular, financial institutions supervised by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA are subject to extensive disclosure and cooperation obligations. Consequently, findings of internal investigations are often voluntarily disclosed to FINMA. In turn, the prosecutors may try to obtain the findings of the internal investigation directly from the supervised financial institutions or, through administrative assistance, from FINMA.

In this context, the questions arise as to whether the findings of an internal investigation conducted by outside counsel and the collected supporting documents are protected by attorney-client privilege and whether privileged documents and information submitted to FINMA may be obtained by the prosecutors. In two recent cases, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court ruled on those issues (see 7B_874/2023 and 7B_158/2023).

In case 7B_874/2023, the prosecutor requested FINMA to provide through mutual legal assistance the enforcement order of the proceedings against a Swiss bank as well as the report of the investigation agent appointed by FINMA. The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the prosecutor could obtain these documents from FINMA, even though the bank argued that the enforcement order and the report of the investigation agent were based on a privileged investigation report of the bank’s Swiss outside counsel.

In case 7B_158/2023, the criminal justice authorities requested the bank in the same matter to provide the report of the internal investigation conducted by the bank’s Swiss outside counsel. The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the prosecutor could not obtain the report from the bank due to attorney-client privilege, although the bank had voluntarily submitted a copy of the report to FINMA.

The present Bulletin summarizes the key considerations of the Federal Supreme Court and their practical implications.

Key Considerations of the Federal Supreme Court on Attorney-Client Privilege

Authorities may forward information voluntarily disclosed to them, even if the information initially was subject to attorney-client privilege

In case 7B_874/2023, the bank took the position that the enforcement order and the report of the investigation agent appointed by FINMA were protected by attorney-client privilege because these documents were based on the privileged internal investigation report of the bank’s Swiss outside counsel.

The Federal Supreme Court rejected the bank’s arguments. According to the court, attorney-client communications are generally protected by attorney-client privilege. However, disclosures to third parties (e.g., an insurance company or government agency) are not considered attorney-client communications, even if the disclosure contains privileged information. Once privileged information is knowingly and voluntarily disclosed to third parties, the information leaves the attorney-client relationship. Therefore, the attorney-client privilege does not prevent third parties from fulfilling their obligation to testify or produce documents. According to the court, this also applies to voluntary disclosures to FINMA, even if the supervised financial institution expressly reserves its rights to claim attorney-client privilege protection.

The Federal Supreme Court concluded that privileged information in the possession of FINMA could be obtained by the prosecutor through mutual legal assistance. According to the court, this applies all the more to the FINMA enforcement order and the report of the investigation agent appointed by FINMA.

The question of whether the prosecutor could obtain the privileged report of the bank’s Swiss outside counsel from FINMA was not part of the proceedings and was therefore not explicitly decided by the Federal Supreme Court. However, the court’s considerations make it sufficiently clear that this would likely be the case if the report was submitted to FINMA voluntarily. Thereby, the court confirmed that supervised financial institutions are not legally required to disclose to FINMA information protected by attorney-client privilege.

Investigation of the facts conducted by external counsel is protected by attorney-client privilege

In case 7B_158/2023, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that reports of internal investigations led by Swiss outside counsel are protected by attorney-client privilege, in particular when the internal investigation is conducted in connection with the advice and representation in existing and impending legal proceedings. In this context, the court concluded that the investigation and analysis of the relevant facts are part of the core area of outside counsels’ work and are therefore privileged.

As a result, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that the report of the bank’s Swiss outside counsel was protected by attorney-client privilege. The exception established by the Federal Supreme Court in earlier decisions that reports by law firms are not subject to attorney-client privilege if they were prepared in connection with documentary obligations pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering Act, did not apply in the present case.

Selection and analysis of pre-existing documents is protected by attorney-client privilege

In case 7B_158/2023, the Federal Supreme Court also confirmed that while internal bank documents as such are not protected by attorney-client privilege, the selection and evaluation of those documents by Swiss outside counsel constitute legal advice and are therefore protected work product. Consequently, the copies of pre-existing documents such as bank internal documents attached to an investigation report from Swiss outside counsel are privileged.

As a result, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that not only the report of the bank’s Swiss outside counsel but also all documents enclosed to the report were protected by attorney-client privilege.

Voluntary disclosure to FINMA does not lead to general loss of attorney-client privilege

In case 7B_158/2023, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that the voluntary disclosure of privileged information to selected third parties does not constitute a general waiver of attorney-client privilege. Consequently, privileged documents and information voluntarily submitted to FINMA by a supervised financial institution do not lose their confidential character and therefore remain protected by attorney-client privilege. Hence, prosecutors may obtain privileged information from FINMA through mutual legal assistance – as this was decided in case 7B_874/2023 – but may not seize the same privileged information directly from the supervised financial institution.

Conclusion and Practical Implications

The Federal Supreme Court has reinforced the protection of attorney-client privilege in the context of internal investigations. However, the court’s position that prosecutors may obtain privileged information from FINMA through mutual legal assistance leads to a disproportionate restriction of the application of attorney-client privilege in connection with mutual legal assistance proceedings between Swiss authorities. The decision is part of a series of Federal Supreme Court decisions that undermine the protection of attorney-client privilege in favor of an efficient and unimpeded cooperation between Swiss criminal and regulatory authorities.

This new case law applies not only to the disclosure of documents to FINMA, as in the case before the Federal Supreme Court, but also to disclosures of privileged information to any other authority (e.g., the Competition Commission or tax authorities) or third party. Financial institutions, as well as other companies, must therefore consider this case law whenever they intend to disclose documents and information voluntarily to authorities and other third parties. Anyone who knowingly and voluntarily discloses privileged documents and information to a third party now risks losing the protection of attorney-client privilege for disclosed documents and information in the possession of the third party.

To preserve the protection of the attorney-client privilege when cooperating with authorities, companies have the following options: (1) consider disclosure of privileged documents and information only if compelled; (2) when possible communicate privileged information orally rather than in writing; or (3) give regulators or other competent authorities access to privileged information on a review-only basis. None of these options is truly satisfactory, and they may be difficult to implement in practice. As a result, this new case law may have the effect of significantly limiting or at least complicating cooperation between companies and authorities as companies will now have to carefully decide on a case-by-case basis whether to disclose privileged information to regulators or other competent authorities.