The 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 i

The 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.