S. 445: Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2009
Before you vote › Federal bills
S. 445: Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2009
111th Congress · introduced 2009-02-13 · Crime and Law Enforcement · Latest: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
federal
Follow this bill, step by step
- Where it came from: introduced 2009-02-13 · official record
- Who proposed it: Sen. Specter, Arlen [R-PA] · what a sponsor is
- What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
- Where it stands now: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
- If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.
Official title
Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2009
Plain summary
Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2009 - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit any U.S. agent or attorney, in any federal investigation or criminal or civil enforcement matter, including any form of administrative proceeding or adjudication, from: (1) demanding or requesting that an organization, or a current or former employee, officer, director, or agent of such organization, waive the protections of the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine; (2) offering to reward or actually rewarding an organization, or current or former employee, officer, director, or agent, for waiving such protections; or (3) threatening adverse treatment or penalizing an organization, or current or former employee, officer, director, or agent, for declining to waive those protections. Prohibits a U.S. agent or attorney in any federal investigation or criminal or civil enforcement matter, including any form of administrative proceeding or adjudication, from considering specified conduct in: (1) making a civil or criminal charging or enforcement decision relating to an organization, or one of its current or former employees or agents; or (2) determining whether an organization, or a current or former employee, officer, director, or agent, 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 protection of the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine; (2) the provision of counsel to, or contribution to the legal defense fees or expenses of, a current or former employee, officer, director, or agent of an organization; (3) entry into, or existence of, a valid joint-defense, information-sharing, or common-interest agreement between an organization and a current or former employee or officer or director or agent, or among its current or former employees; (4) the sharing of relevant information in anticipation of or in response to an investigation or enforcement matter between an organization and a current or former employee or officer or director or agent, or among its current or former employees, unless shuch sharing is itself an offense; or (5) the failure to terminate the employment or affiliation of or otherwise sanction any employee, officer, director, or agent of the organization because of the employee's, officer's, director's, or agent's decision to exercise personal constitutional rights or other legal protections in response to a government request. Prohibits a U.S. agent or attorney from demanding or requesting that an organization or an affiliated person not take any such action.
Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in Senate), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.
What a vote does
A “Yea” vote
If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.
A “Nay” vote
If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.
PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).
What does this mean? (plain words)
Official text
Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2009
Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in Senate)
AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text
No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.
Limited to a few requests an hour per person.
The strongest published arguments
Arguments for (supporters)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Arguments against (opponents)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Alternatives
Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes
Officials and money
Sponsor: Sen. Specter, Arlen [R-PA] · 5 cosponsors
Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.
Cosponsors on this site
No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.
Sources
- Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in Senate)
- Congress.gov
- Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-111s445.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/111/s>
Record fed-us-cong111-s445 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong111 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong111