The stock market bubble had burst several times over, then WorldCom and HealthSouth joined the ranks of major companies whose balance sheets were too good to be true. Yet the Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn the conviction of Arthur Andersen is a poignant reminder that all who are criminally charged even corporations -- are entitled to basic legal protections.

Arthur Andersen was indicted for an ill-timed execution of its document retention policy -- a policy that the Supreme Court recognized is "common in business." In his opinion in the Andersen case, Chief Justice Rehnquist issued a strong reminder that all prosecutors in today's climate need to heed: It is neither wrong nor "inherently malign" to withhold information or testimony from the government.

"Consider, for instance, a mother who suggests to her son that he invoke his right against compelled self-incrimination," he wrote, "or a wife who persuades her husband not to disclose marital confidences."

A company's assertion of attorney-client privilege is no different than these more personal examples of situations in which the law recognizes a right not to disclose information. The chief justice wrote, "No one would suggest that an attorney who persuaded" a company to assert a valid claim that certain requested documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege "acted wrongfully."

Yet, this has been the precise "suggestion" of federal law enforcement officials for the last several years -- and not only in the Andersen case. In fact, it is the written policy of the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission that the failure to turn over documents that are protected by attorney-client privilege can (and likely will) form the basis for bringing criminal charges against a company.

According to DOJ's policy, the assertion of even a valid, good-faith claim of attorney-client privilege is presumed to be an "obstacle." That "obstacle" means that a prosecutor has to "negotiate individual immunity agreements" in order to obtain confidential information without a corporation's wholesale waiver of privilege, the DOJ policy says.

Viewed from the standpoint of, for example, a manager of a chemical facility who discusses a possible problem with the company's lawyer, privilege is not a pesky "obstacle." It is an essential component of the ability to do a job in accordance with the law, without fear of indictment.

The federal government has lost sight of the fact that withholding privileged information from the government is not a luxury reserved for the innocent. Rather, the attorney-client privilege is a centuries-old right held by each citizen -- even after the citizen is accused of a crime. That right is severely weakened every time a prosecutor determines that a corporation must waive it in order to avoid indictment -- and indictment, as we learned from Andersen, can be a death sentence for a company.

Federal prosecutors can, as they have in previous decades, obtain information about a company's potential violations by conducting interviews and, where necessary, issuing subpoenas. Asserting the attorney-client privilege does not mean that a corporation can withhold information about facts and events; it only means that its employees' conversations with company lawyers are not subject to government scrutiny.

There are also exceptions, such as when the privilege is used to commit a fraud, that a prosecutor may pursue in appropriate cases in order to overcome the privilege.

Requests for corporate privilege waivers are part of a disturbing trend. A recent survey by the Association of Corporate Counsel and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers showed that 87 percent of corporate clients had recently been asked to waive the attorney-client privilege -- mostly in federal criminal investigations. This means that a large proportion of private corporate lawyers, who are supposed to represent companies and their employees, are being deputized as government investigators.

Incredibly, employees of Computer Associates were recently indicted by the Department of Justice for making false statements to the government, based on their conversations with private lawyers who were conducting internal investigations. The theory was that the employees should have known that their privileged statements would be turned over to the government.

You don't need to watch "Law & Order" every night to know that when the criminal justice system goes off the rails, it causes a train wreck for everyone. Similarly, a system that protects one defendant's rights protects the rights of all.

The lesson of Arthur Andersen applies to all of us: It's proper to assert rights that are protected by law when you are accused of a crime. Let's hope the government has learned it, too.