3 ms·
Along these lines, in theory allowing a 3rd party to listen to these conversations waives the attorney client privilege. In practice this would amount to being
by will_brown 11y ago
Along these lines, in theory allowing a 3rd party to listen to these conversations waives the attorney client privilege. In practice this would amount to being able to compel REV to testify about these conversations when relevant.
- viggity 11y agonot if Rev is being paid for their work. Think of it like an english to spanish translator, a spanish only illegal immigrant can still expect privilege with their counsel even if translator is there. Just because a third party is involved doesn't automatically waive privilege, it needs to be a third party unrelated to the case.
- will_brown 11y agoThe Courts will look at the precise role of the third party to determine if the privilege has been waived. Obviously, there is a major distinction in using a interpreter, when the interpreter is essential[1] to further the legal representation. Whereas in the Soylent example, REV is not essential to further the representation, for example the lawyer/client could transcribe the conversation themselves and are only using a 3rd party for convenience. [1]State v. Shire, 850 S.W.2d 923 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) - Because the daughter wasn’t essential in conveying information to the lawyer and wasn’t reasonably necessary to protect her mother’s interests, her presence at the meeting destroyed the privilege.