In the case of National Labor Relations Board et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 1974, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not advice given by an attorney to a client (in this instance, Sears) should be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) had refused to disclose certain memoranda that were part of its 'advice files', arguing they were exempt from disclosure under FOIA as they constituted "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums." However, Sears argued these documents fell within the scope of FOIA and thus should be made available for public inspection. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of NLRB stating that such memos are indeed exempted from mandatory disclosure under Exemption 5 of FOIA which covers inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al. v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., Justice William O. Douglas argued that Sears had a right to refuse to disclose certain information requested by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). He contended that this refusal did not constitute an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act because it was based on legitimate concerns about confidentiality and relevance. Furthermore, he believed that NLRB's demand for such information exceeded its statutory authority as it sought access to internal company documents related to decision-making processes which were irrelevant to any ongoing or potential labor disputes at Sears. In his view, forcing companies like Sears to comply with such broad requests would set a dangerous precedent infringing upon their rights and undermining their ability to conduct business effectively.