50 ms·
I wonder if there is a legal loophole wherein by becoming legal counsel for a source, you are no longer required to divulge anything they tell you due to attorn
by lukifer 13y ago
I wonder if there is a legal loophole wherein by becoming legal counsel for a source, you are no longer required to divulge anything they tell you due to attorney-client privilege. It would require the right to practice law, but it works on paper (obviously I am not a lawyer).
- mseebach 13y agoClient-attorney privilege primarily protects the communication with the client, not the identity of the client - which is rather counter-productive for a journalist.
- lukifer 13y agoI was thinking in terms of testifying against a client ("They leaked me Document X"), as opposed to revealing their identity.
- weland 13y agoOn the other hand, it could provide some degree of plausabile deniability, wouldn't it? "Sure, I talked to X several times. I also talked to Y, Z and <a gazillion of other people who look important, but aren't>. But I can't tell you about what -- you know, client-attorney...".
- btilly 13y agoA glance at where people are in an organizational structure will usually make the leaker stick out like a sore thumb.
- jeffdavis 13y agoI don't see how this fits with leaked information. Are you supposed to tell a judge that it's privileged information, but you printed it in your newspaper?