4 ms·

Because they are literally a client of the lawyers. We can argue about corporate personhood, but the definition of “attorney client privilege” is very clear. It

Because they are literally a client of the lawyers. We can argue about corporate personhood, but the definition of “attorney client privilege” is very clear. It’s not “attorney human privilege.”

mountainb 5y ago
Employees are not clients. Executives are not clients. The company is the client. Employees and executives are there to be sacrificed for the company in issues like this. The go-to defense just about always involves throwing the minions to the wolves to protect the shareholders.
verve_rat 5y ago
That makes sense to protect the rights of individuals, but why should those same rights be extended to businesses? Maybe the world would be a better place if companies (and government departments) couldn't protect communications with legal counsel? I haven't put in enough thought to have a coherent position, but the argument for the current arrangements seem to boil down to "because that is how it always was". Maybe corporate personhood brought along the rights of human personhood and maybe that is a good thing, but it seems to have just happened by default. Maybe we should debate if attorney client privilege is a privilege of clients, or of humans?
- berberous 5y ago
  The point of attorney client privilege is to encourage the client to get the advice of counsel, who can hopefully guide the client to staying within the law. That policy goal applies equally well for both individuals and corporations. It is not some handout to corporations.
  - staticman2 5y ago
    I had a law professor say in his opinion the reason there is no mandatory reporter exception for attorney client privilege like there is for doctors and teachers is simply the fact that attorneys write the laws and are protecting each other.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  > That makes sense to protect the rights of individuals, but why should those same rights be extended to businesses? Why are individuals stripped of their rights when they congregate together towards a common purpose?
  - staticman2 5y ago
    A corporation is not a group of people with a common purpose. It's a legal and financial instrument to control other people's money with minimal accountability or oversight.
    - colejohnson66 5y ago
      Maybe the multi-billion dollar ones, yes. But the idea of a corporation, at its heart, is to collectively work towards a goal. Crony Capitalism just warped that goal to be about the betterment of the ultrarich. If FAANG or whoever is violating the law, that’s because of the company, not attorney-client privilege. The solution isn’t to kneecap every company by removing their rights, but to enforce the laws on the books against the anti-competitive corporations, and maybe write some new consumer protection ones.
      - staticman2 5y ago
        The idea that a corporation is just a collective groups of folks is simply wrong. Take this situation, nobody is going to poll Google employees and ask if they would prefer if Google waived attorney client privilege in this manner and act accordingly. It's not just a group of folks making decisions, it's a structure for a small group of folks to manage the asset and labor of others with minimal oversight.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Why give it to humans either? I suspect if you can't answer this question, you won't be able to answer the other.
stale2002 5y ago
The reason we have laws is not because of how words are defined in a dictionary. Instead, there are other underlying reasons for why laws exist, and it is not because of some silly argument such as "Well, this is what the the definition of a word is, therefore we are stuck and can't do anything about it!". And other people are questioning what these other underlying reasons are.

mountainb 5y ago

Employees are not clients. Executives are not clients. The company is the client. Employees and executives are there to be sacrificed for the company in issues like this. The go-to defense just about always involves throwing the minions to the wolves to protect the shareholders.

verve_rat 5y ago

That makes sense to protect the rights of individuals, but why should those same rights be extended to businesses? Maybe the world would be a better place if companies (and government departments) couldn't protect communications with legal counsel? I haven't put in enough thought to have a coherent position, but the argument for the current arrangements seem to boil down to "because that is how it always was". Maybe corporate personhood brought along the rights of human personhood and maybe that is a good thing, but it seems to have just happened by default. Maybe we should debate if attorney client privilege is a privilege of clients, or of humans?

berberous 5y ago
The point of attorney client privilege is to encourage the client to get the advice of counsel, who can hopefully guide the client to staying within the law. That policy goal applies equally well for both individuals and corporations. It is not some handout to corporations.
- staticman2 5y ago
  I had a law professor say in his opinion the reason there is no mandatory reporter exception for attorney client privilege like there is for doctors and teachers is simply the fact that attorneys write the laws and are protecting each other.
willcipriano 5y ago
> That makes sense to protect the rights of individuals, but why should those same rights be extended to businesses? Why are individuals stripped of their rights when they congregate together towards a common purpose?
- staticman2 5y ago
  A corporation is not a group of people with a common purpose. It's a legal and financial instrument to control other people's money with minimal accountability or oversight.
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    Maybe the multi-billion dollar ones, yes. But the idea of a corporation, at its heart, is to collectively work towards a goal. Crony Capitalism just warped that goal to be about the betterment of the ultrarich. If FAANG or whoever is violating the law, that’s because of the company, not attorney-client privilege. The solution isn’t to kneecap every company by removing their rights, but to enforce the laws on the books against the anti-competitive corporations, and maybe write some new consumer protection ones.
    - staticman2 5y ago
      The idea that a corporation is just a collective groups of folks is simply wrong. Take this situation, nobody is going to poll Google employees and ask if they would prefer if Google waived attorney client privilege in this manner and act accordingly. It's not just a group of folks making decisions, it's a structure for a small group of folks to manage the asset and labor of others with minimal oversight.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
Why give it to humans either? I suspect if you can't answer this question, you won't be able to answer the other.

stale2002 5y ago

The reason we have laws is not because of how words are defined in a dictionary. Instead, there are other underlying reasons for why laws exist, and it is not because of some silly argument such as "Well, this is what the the definition of a word is, therefore we are stuck and can't do anything about it!". And other people are questioning what these other underlying reasons are.