255 



swer every question that has been put to you by this committee 

 and you have been an excellent witness. And I thank you, sir. 



Mr. Sandefur. Thank you. 



Mr. Waxman. That concludes the hearing for today and we stand 

 adjourned. 



[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 



[The following material was received for the record:] 



Statement of Hon. H. Martin Lancaster 



Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee has requested that Thomas E. Sandefur, Brown 

 & WilUamson's CEO, respond to questions about various documents, many of which 

 were stolen from Brown & Williamson's outside law firm by a former paralegal and 

 have recently received widespread attention in the media. It is my understanding 

 that at least some of those purloined documents contain confidential communica- 

 tions between Brown & Williamson and its lawyers. I believe that this subcommit- 

 tee should not ask — and Mr. Sandefur would be justified in not responding to— ques- 

 tions about those documents that are protected under the attorney-client privilege. 



As you know, the attorney-client privilege is a legal doctrine designed to protect 

 confidential communications between a lawyer and his client. The privilege is essen- 

 tial to the smooth functioning of our legal system because it encourages lawyers and 

 clients to speak openly and frankly witli each other, without the fear that what they 

 say will be later be used against them. By promoting freedom of consultation, the 

 privilege encourages clients to voluntarily comply with the law, and allows lawyers 

 to do their job. 



If privileged materials are not guarded zealously, the resulting loss may be dev- 

 astating. Forcing disclosure of privileged documents effectively destroys a client's 

 right to consult confidentially with counsel. While the privilege is not necessarily 

 lost if material is involuntarilv or accidentally disclosed, every knowing and inten- 

 tional disclosure of privileged material erodes the privilege, and simultaneously 

 erodes clients' ability to speak openly and honestly witn their lawyers. 



In 1966 I had the privilege of working for Senator Sam Ervin, a great defender 

 of the Constitution and the rule of law. He must be spinning in his grave to see 

 that the rule of law is being savaged in the furtherance of the politically popular 

 anti-tobacco crusade. 



It would be wrong, plain wrong, to force any U.S. citizen (regardless of political 

 popularity) to choose between public humiliation and relinquishment of the attor- 

 ney-client privilege. The privilege is sacred to our fair system of justice. I respect- 

 fully ask the chairman and the other members of the subcommittee to exercise great 

 caution, therefore, in discussing, inquiring about, or revealing any documents that 

 may contain confidential communications between Brown & Williamson and its law- 

 yers. 



