Part II of this Note discusses the current state of attorney-client privilege law with respect to corporate communications. It first provides a brief overview of privilege law and introduces the public policy argument that the pursuit of truth in litigation demands restriction of attorney-client privilege rather than expansion to cover more communications, especially within the corporate context. It then outlines the development of the two basic tests for determining the scope of corporate privilege and discusses the Upjohn decision and its effect on the approaches of various states. Part II goes on to explain Massachusetts’s approach to an analogous issue and introduces Commissioner of Revenue v. Comcast Corp., a case the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) recently decided that involved questions of privilege with respect to corporate communications involving third-party consultants. While the SJC did not specifically address the scope of attorney-client privilege within the corporate structure in this case, its discussion demonstrates that determining the boundaries of corporate privilege is an unresolved issue in Massachusetts. . .
