3 ms·

This is just Google up to their old tricks again. They used to have an internal practice to add company lawyers to emails in order to try and make them privile

This is just Google up to their old tricks again. They used to have an internal practice to add company lawyers to emails in order to try and make them privileged and undiscoverable: https://archive.is/1Bwgs https://archive.is/1Bwgs I don't know what the aftermath of the DoJ action mentioned in the link was, but I hope they were sanctioned in some way for it, just like I hope they get sanctioned for what they're trying to do here.

zootboy 4y ago
There was a recent supreme court case where they discussed this exact practice: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1397 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1397 From listening to the oral arguments, the court didn't seem to think that just CC'ing a lawyer automatically made the full communication privileged.
- seanhunter 4y ago
  Yup, as per my note in another thread this does not work and it's pretty dumb to think it will work. Privilege covers you providing facts so they can give advice and them giving advice. It doesn't cover anything else and adding a lawyer to a thread like that is just sketchy and looks evasive.
  - JWLong 4y ago
    “If simply having a lawyer present made a conversation privileged, then every mobster would pay one to follow them everywhere and sit in the corner of the room.” ~ Opening Arguments
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  I get the idea that if Google was delivering drugs to someone they would start off the conversation: "Are you a cop? Cause you have to tell me if you are!"
- ajb 4y ago
  You should be a bit wary of reading oral arguments as definitive, because the judges have a history of applying the more aggressive questioning to the side they ultimately agree with, just to make sure it's solid.
- btown 4y ago
  https://www.stroock.com/news-and-insights/u-s-supreme-court-dismisses-cert-in-case-concerning-scope-of-attorney-client-privilege-for-dual-purpose-communications https://www.stroock.com/news-and-insights/u-s-supreme-court-... provides some more context - and speculates as to why the court declined to take the opportunity to definitively establish a standard here. It seems to still be an open question what the standard is!
MagicMoonlight 4y ago
At that point I’d be arguing it’s a criminal conspiracy involving the lawyer so anything with that lawyer no longer has privileges due to being evidence of crime

zootboy 4y ago

There was a recent supreme court case where they discussed this exact practice: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1397 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1397 From listening to the oral arguments, the court didn't seem to think that just CC'ing a lawyer automatically made the full communication privileged.

seanhunter 4y ago
Yup, as per my note in another thread this does not work and it's pretty dumb to think it will work. Privilege covers you providing facts so they can give advice and them giving advice. It doesn't cover anything else and adding a lawyer to a thread like that is just sketchy and looks evasive.
- JWLong 4y ago
  “If simply having a lawyer present made a conversation privileged, then every mobster would pay one to follow them everywhere and sit in the corner of the room.” ~ Opening Arguments
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
I get the idea that if Google was delivering drugs to someone they would start off the conversation: "Are you a cop? Cause you have to tell me if you are!"
ajb 4y ago
You should be a bit wary of reading oral arguments as definitive, because the judges have a history of applying the more aggressive questioning to the side they ultimately agree with, just to make sure it's solid.
btown 4y ago
https://www.stroock.com/news-and-insights/u-s-supreme-court-dismisses-cert-in-case-concerning-scope-of-attorney-client-privilege-for-dual-purpose-communications https://www.stroock.com/news-and-insights/u-s-supreme-court-... provides some more context - and speculates as to why the court declined to take the opportunity to definitively establish a standard here. It seems to still be an open question what the standard is!

MagicMoonlight 4y ago

At that point I’d be arguing it’s a criminal conspiracy involving the lawyer so anything with that lawyer no longer has privileges due to being evidence of crime