4 ms·

Some businesses, not sure on google, will actually have lawyers on most meetings in order to circumvent subpoenas as it's "protected" discussions that way... I

Some businesses, not sure on google, will actually have lawyers on most meetings in order to circumvent subpoenas as it's "protected" discussions that way... I don't recall the details, just rememember seeing a report on the practice.

vkou 4y ago
I've always been told by corporate training that unless a lawyer is being asked a particular legal question, simply including them in a conversation does not raise an attorney-client confidentiality shield.
gumby 4y ago
Just having a lawyer in the room doesn’t make the conversation privileged. It’s a conversation with the lawyer that is privileged, so they actually have to be a participant.
- runnerup 4y ago
  Uhh...it's also not privileged, if the lawyer is participating in the discussion about ongoing planning of criminal activity. http://doctorcleveland.blogspot.com/2018/04/don-corleones-guide-to-attorney-client.html http://doctorcleveland.blogspot.com/2018/04/don-corleones-gu... > [The lawyer] Hagen is not only party to that decision but party to a detailed discussion of methods. He cannot pretend attorney-client privilege here either.
  - gumby 4y ago
    Also true, as the recent crime-fraud exception case demonstrated in one of the trump investigations this very month. So it’s pretty narrow.
AlbertCory 4y ago
What @vkou said. Just including the lawyer doesn't make it privileged.
twoodfin 4y ago
If you want to hear SCOTUS explore the limits of attorney-client privilege, including extensive discussion on just this practice, the oral arguments for In re Grand Jury are well worth a listen: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1397 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1397 (SCOTUS ultimately decided to punt the case.)
aikinai 4y ago
Google’s legal training specifically says that this won’t work and don’t do it anyway.
runnerup 4y ago
"If you're committing an ongoing crime and you involve your lawyer in it, there's no privilege involved. That's not an attorney. It's an accomplice." http://doctorcleveland.blogspot.com/2018/04/don-corleones-guide-to-attorney-client.html http://doctorcleveland.blogspot.com/2018/04/don-corleones-gu... > Later on, when Don Corleone is incapacitated, [the lawyer] Hagen sits in on a five-person strategy meeting where at least three murders are ordered. Hagen can't claim attorney-client privilege for any of that. Passing the bar is not a license to kill. Hagen is sitting there when his foster-brother Sonny orders a disloyal subordinate named Paulie Gatto killed. If the Gatto murder ever went to trial, Hagen would not be a lawyer but a defendant.
- bmitc 4y ago
  Sounds like the comment you replied to is a case of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75iv3RKQUAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75iv3RKQUAM
ocdtrekkie 4y ago
This is explicitly something Google has been found having done, and been told it won't work. Generally speaking, if the lawyer's input is not requested, and the lawyer does not respond, the attempt to claim it's privileged will be thrown out. Here is the DOJ accusing Google of that exactly, a year ago, related to the same case: 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...

vkou 4y ago

I've always been told by corporate training that unless a lawyer is being asked a particular legal question, simply including them in a conversation does not raise an attorney-client confidentiality shield.

gumby 4y ago

Just having a lawyer in the room doesn’t make the conversation privileged. It’s a conversation with the lawyer that is privileged, so they actually have to be a participant.

runnerup 4y ago
Uhh...it's also not privileged, if the lawyer is participating in the discussion about ongoing planning of criminal activity. http://doctorcleveland.blogspot.com/2018/04/don-corleones-guide-to-attorney-client.html http://doctorcleveland.blogspot.com/2018/04/don-corleones-gu... > [The lawyer] Hagen is not only party to that decision but party to a detailed discussion of methods. He cannot pretend attorney-client privilege here either.
- gumby 4y ago
  Also true, as the recent crime-fraud exception case demonstrated in one of the trump investigations this very month. So it’s pretty narrow.

AlbertCory 4y ago

What @vkou said. Just including the lawyer doesn't make it privileged.

twoodfin 4y ago

If you want to hear SCOTUS explore the limits of attorney-client privilege, including extensive discussion on just this practice, the oral arguments for In re Grand Jury are well worth a listen: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1397 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1397 (SCOTUS ultimately decided to punt the case.)

aikinai 4y ago

Google’s legal training specifically says that this won’t work and don’t do it anyway.

runnerup 4y ago

"If you're committing an ongoing crime and you involve your lawyer in it, there's no privilege involved. That's not an attorney. It's an accomplice." http://doctorcleveland.blogspot.com/2018/04/don-corleones-guide-to-attorney-client.html http://doctorcleveland.blogspot.com/2018/04/don-corleones-gu... > Later on, when Don Corleone is incapacitated, [the lawyer] Hagen sits in on a five-person strategy meeting where at least three murders are ordered. Hagen can't claim attorney-client privilege for any of that. Passing the bar is not a license to kill. Hagen is sitting there when his foster-brother Sonny orders a disloyal subordinate named Paulie Gatto killed. If the Gatto murder ever went to trial, Hagen would not be a lawyer but a defendant.

bmitc 4y ago
Sounds like the comment you replied to is a case of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75iv3RKQUAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75iv3RKQUAM

ocdtrekkie 4y ago

This is explicitly something Google has been found having done, and been told it won't work. Generally speaking, if the lawyer's input is not requested, and the lawyer does not respond, the attempt to claim it's privileged will be thrown out. Here is the DOJ accusing Google of that exactly, a year ago, related to the same case: 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...