Redgrave LLP Files Amicus Brief on Behalf of Lawyers for Civil Justice Addressing the Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege

On February 2, 2026, Redgrave LLP (“Redgrave”) filed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on behalf of Lawyers for Civil Justice (“LCJ”) (www.lfcj.com) in Meta Platforms Inc. v. District of Columbia.  The brief urges the Court to grant mandamus and reverse the Superior Court’s expansion of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.

The matter stems from Meta’s inadvertent production of four internal chat strings that included discussions reflecting in-house legal advice.  After Meta clawed the materials back and asserted privilege and work‑product protection, the D.C. Superior Court ordered production of the redacted portions of the chats in October 2025, finding that the crime‑fraud exception applied.  Meta sought reconsideration or certification for interlocutory appeal, but the Superior Court denied that request in January 2026 and reaffirmed its prior reasoning.  Meta subsequently filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the Superior Court stayed production of the documents while the petition is pending.

In its petition, Meta emphasizes that the Superior Court’s approach diverges from established D.C. precedent requiring a prima facie showing that privileged communications were made in furtherance of an actual crime or fraud.  The petition also notes the broader implications for in-house counsel, whose day-to-day legal guidance is often intertwined with business discussions.

LCJ, represented by Redgrave, filed its amicus brief to underscore the importance of maintaining predictable, well-defined safeguards surrounding the attorney-client privilege, particularly for corporations that rely on candid legal risk assessment.  As explained in the brief, the crime‑fraud exception is a narrow doctrine that applies only in exceptional circumstances and only when supported by evidence that the lawyer was retained for the purpose of furthering a crime or fraud and that the legal advice itself advanced the crime or fraud.  LCJ’s filing notes that the Superior Court applied the exception without identifying an actionable crime or fraud in furtherance of which counsel was retained and without citing evidence that the communications in fact furthered a crime, fraud, or other misconduct.  The brief also raises concerns about the court’s refusal to consider contextual evidence or to conduct an evidentiary hearing, which are procedural protections that help ensure privilege is not pierced without a sound factual foundation.  LCJ further observes that other courts examining the same documents in related matters have reached different conclusions and have not found the crime-fraud exception applicable on the current record.

LCJ’s amicus brief further highlights the broader significance of this issue.  Expanding the crime‑fraud exception without the established safeguards risks creating uncertainty for companies and their counsel, potentially discouraging clients from seeking timely, candid legal advice on sensitive matters.  A predictable privilege framework remains essential to the effective functioning of the attorney-client relationship.

The D.C. Court of Appeals is now considering Meta’s mandamus petition.  Its decision will influence how courts nationwide evaluate privilege disputes involving corporate legal advice.  Redgrave will continue to monitor developments.

LCJ is a national coalition of defense trial lawyer organizations, law firms, and corporations that promotes excellence and fairness in the civil justice system to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of civil cases.  LCJ is represented by Jonathan M. Redgrave, who drafted the brief along with Gareth T. Evans, Ted S. Hiser, and Kevin M. Benedicto.