In the case of United States v. John Doe, Inc. I et al., 1986, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a corporation could invoke attorney-client privilege in refusing to disclose documents subpoenaed by a grand jury. The court held that corporations can indeed claim this privilege and refuse disclosure if they can demonstrate that the communication was made for the purpose of securing legal advice or services. However, it also ruled that asserting such privilege does not automatically protect all corporate communications from discovery; rather, each document must be examined individually to determine its eligibility for protection under attorney-client privilege.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. John Doe, Inc. I argued that the majority's decision to allow a corporation's attorney-client privilege to be waived by its former employees was incorrect and could have far-reaching implications for corporate law. The dissenters believed that this ruling would discourage open communication between corporations and their lawyers, which is essential for ensuring compliance with laws and regulations. They also expressed concern about the potential for abuse of power by prosecutors who might use this ruling to pressure former employees into waiving privilege rights under threat of prosecution or other adverse consequences. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that corporations should not enjoy the same protections as individuals when it comes to attorney-client privilege because they are artificial entities created by law rather than natural persons.