4 ms·

> 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

by 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.

by jefftk 4y ago

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.