5 ms·

And they also teach employees how to Communicate with Care: always CC a lawyer and ask a question. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/03/google-routinely

And they also teach employees how to Communicate with Care: always CC a lawyer and ask a question. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/03/google-routinely-hides-emails-from-litigation-by-ccing-attorneys-doj-alleges/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/03/google-routinely... The issue here is not so much that Google is playing these games but how this draws energy away from OTHER games-- i.e. shipping and keeping alive new products and offering real customer service for existing ones.

p0pcult 4y ago
Wow, that's so completely fucked.
jefftk 4y ago
> always CC a lawyer and ask a question People would add lawyers like this, but (a) it wasn't something the trainings said to do, (b) the lawyers hated it, and (c) it doesn't work. (I used to work at Google, speaking only for myself)
- omginternets 4y ago
  When does it not work, generally speaking?
  - jefftk 4y ago
    My understanding is that adding a lawyer to a conversation isn't sufficient to shield it from discovery. Instead you actually need to (a) be asking a lawyer for legal advice, (b) not cc or otherwise share with anyone who does not need that advice, and (c) not include unrelated matters. When I've written things that actually needed to be privileged I would start a separate email, address it only to the lawyer and specific people who also needed to know the advice, and keep the thread carefully on topic. (Not a lawyer)
  - justeleblanc 4y ago
    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/attorney-client-privilege-abuse-privilege-013142438.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/attorney-client-privilege-abu...
  - vkou 4y ago
    When you're not asking for particular legal advice about a particular legal problem, CCing a lawyer doesn't result in your communication being protected by layer-client privilege.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  DOJ alleges that a) is factual [1]. Perhaps not in your training but I've also never seen the slides in the pdf before. [1]: https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/03/22/memo_in_support-to-sanction_goog.pdf https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/03/22/memo_in_support-to-sanctio...
  - jefftk 4y ago
    Good point; I was trying to talk about the standard company wide training on communication and privilege. Even though I worked in a relatively legally tricky area, the only training I got on privilege was company-level, and I was assuming (incorrectly apparently) that that was how it worked throughout the company.
    - choppaface 4y ago
      The response here further supplements the argument that Googlers (and ex-Googlers apparently) care more about winning the debate they can see (even if they’re fundamentally wrong as evidence showed here) instead of trying to imagine a life after Search. As a taxpayer and Google shareholder, I definitely want technical talent diverted into making real products versus playing epistemic games with the DOJ or finding new creative ways to subvert discovery. We wasted enough fighting Microsoft, we don’t need to do it again just because Googlers think they’re better.
omginternets 4y ago
I’m curious, what is the legal process for dealing with manufactured privilege?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  What is manufactured privilege?
  - Jtsummers 4y ago
    Communications with your lawyer are privileged. Communications with other people are not (necessarily) privileged. By looping in the lawyer it creates a pretext (that probably won't hold up) for claiming it is privileged communication.
    - gopher_space 4y ago
      Interesting. I just went to a meeting where my presence meant there could be no privileged communication even though the lawyer's client was also my client and they had requested my attendance.
      - Jtsummers 4y ago
        Right. From the Ars article it seemed that it was Google employees looping in Google lawyers while communicating with each other, not Google employees looping in the lawyers while also talking with third parties. So more like if I and a colleague both go to legal to hold a conversation just to gain the benefit of their presence to call it privileged. But if the lawyer is just sitting there working through a book of sudoku puzzles, then it's probably not really a valid claim of privilege. From the Ars article: > In 2016, Google instructed employees to create artificial indicia of privilege for all written communications related to revenue-share agreements and Mobile Application Distribution Agreements (MADAs), the exclusionary agreements at the heart of this action. Google reiterated those instructions after the Department of Justice issued its first Civil Investigative Demand in the investigation preceding this case. The Court should, therefore, sanction Google for its deliberate and deceptive misuse of the attorney-client privilege and order the company to produce, unredacted, all emails between non-attorneys where included in-house counsel did not bother to reply, indicating that any request for legal advice was most likely a pretext.

p0pcult 4y ago

Wow, that's so completely fucked.

jefftk 4y ago

> always CC a lawyer and ask a question People would add lawyers like this, but (a) it wasn't something the trainings said to do, (b) the lawyers hated it, and (c) it doesn't work. (I used to work at Google, speaking only for myself)

omginternets 4y ago
When does it not work, generally speaking?
- jefftk 4y ago
  My understanding is that adding a lawyer to a conversation isn't sufficient to shield it from discovery. Instead you actually need to (a) be asking a lawyer for legal advice, (b) not cc or otherwise share with anyone who does not need that advice, and (c) not include unrelated matters. When I've written things that actually needed to be privileged I would start a separate email, address it only to the lawyer and specific people who also needed to know the advice, and keep the thread carefully on topic. (Not a lawyer)
- justeleblanc 4y ago
  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/attorney-client-privilege-abuse-privilege-013142438.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/attorney-client-privilege-abu...
- vkou 4y ago
  When you're not asking for particular legal advice about a particular legal problem, CCing a lawyer doesn't result in your communication being protected by layer-client privilege.
lesuorac 4y ago
DOJ alleges that a) is factual [1]. Perhaps not in your training but I've also never seen the slides in the pdf before. [1]: https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/03/22/memo_in_support-to-sanction_goog.pdf https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/03/22/memo_in_support-to-sanctio...
- jefftk 4y ago
  Good point; I was trying to talk about the standard company wide training on communication and privilege. Even though I worked in a relatively legally tricky area, the only training I got on privilege was company-level, and I was assuming (incorrectly apparently) that that was how it worked throughout the company.
  - choppaface 4y ago
    The response here further supplements the argument that Googlers (and ex-Googlers apparently) care more about winning the debate they can see (even if they’re fundamentally wrong as evidence showed here) instead of trying to imagine a life after Search. As a taxpayer and Google shareholder, I definitely want technical talent diverted into making real products versus playing epistemic games with the DOJ or finding new creative ways to subvert discovery. We wasted enough fighting Microsoft, we don’t need to do it again just because Googlers think they’re better.

omginternets 4y ago

I’m curious, what is the legal process for dealing with manufactured privilege?

shadowgovt 4y ago
What is manufactured privilege?
- Jtsummers 4y ago
  Communications with your lawyer are privileged. Communications with other people are not (necessarily) privileged. By looping in the lawyer it creates a pretext (that probably won't hold up) for claiming it is privileged communication.
  - gopher_space 4y ago
    Interesting. I just went to a meeting where my presence meant there could be no privileged communication even though the lawyer's client was also my client and they had requested my attendance.
    - Jtsummers 4y ago
      Right. From the Ars article it seemed that it was Google employees looping in Google lawyers while communicating with each other, not Google employees looping in the lawyers while also talking with third parties. So more like if I and a colleague both go to legal to hold a conversation just to gain the benefit of their presence to call it privileged. But if the lawyer is just sitting there working through a book of sudoku puzzles, then it's probably not really a valid claim of privilege. From the Ars article: > In 2016, Google instructed employees to create artificial indicia of privilege for all written communications related to revenue-share agreements and Mobile Application Distribution Agreements (MADAs), the exclusionary agreements at the heart of this action. Google reiterated those instructions after the Department of Justice issued its first Civil Investigative Demand in the investigation preceding this case. The Court should, therefore, sanction Google for its deliberate and deceptive misuse of the attorney-client privilege and order the company to produce, unredacted, all emails between non-attorneys where included in-house counsel did not bother to reply, indicating that any request for legal advice was most likely a pretext.