When investigative techniques include the execution of searches and the use of electronic surveillance, an intrusion into legitimate attorney-client communications may occur. Knowledge that such investigations may occur can have a chilling effect on attorney-client relationships. In addition, an appearance of prosecutorial impropriety may arise that casts doubts on the motives and integrity of the prosecutor. Finally, an adverse impact on the adversary process itself may result, thereby jeopardizing the existence of the very system the investigators seek to protect. Adequate safeguards must be designed and implemented to satisfy the competing social interests involved in such cases. Every step in the investigation must be the product of principled judgments, guided by the establishment of internal office controls and circumscribed by legally mandated procedures. The decision to initiate an investigation should be subject to a formal, centralized review by a high level official in the prosecutor's office. Less intrusive investigative techniques should be exhausted first, and an exacting review of the warrant process should be required, including adherence to particularization and minimization guidelines. Finally, self-regulation by law enforcement officers is of primary importance in safeguarding privileged attorney-client communications. 112 footnotes. ABI/jp