DOJ Says They Can No Longer Afford To Respect The Attorney-Client Privilege

[mahatmakanejeeves]

DOJ Says They Can No Longer Afford To Respect The Attorney-Client Privilege

24 Jul 2014 at 10:17 AM
Department of Justice, White-Collar Crime
By Matt Kaiser

....
Ok, now let’s suppose that you are locked up. ... Your lawyer is working on your appeal while you’re in the Bureau of Prisons. You’re not lucky enough to be dripping with cash. You want a good defense, even a very good defense, but you’re also watching your dollars. ... Or, perhaps you’re CJA {Criminal Justice Act} and a judge is watching your lawyer’s hours — not being terribly eager to pay for much beyond the basic package when it comes to representation. ... For whatever reason — suppose you read about the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel back in Junior High — you decide that you’d like to talk to your lawyer about your case.
....

(4) You can use CorrLinks — the prison email system. Think of it as AOL, except instead of being for old people, it’s for people in a federal prison. It’s fast, it’s free, and it comes with a notice saying the prison can read your email. ... Let’s assume that defense lawyers need to communicate with their clients about a complicated matter of some urgency. ... Like a court case.
....

And the predictable thing is happening as a result — as the New York Times reports, federal prosecutors are reading emails between attorneys and their clients in white-collar cases. ... Because money is the reason at least one federal prosecutor is offering for why it’s ok:

{United States District Court Judge Dora L. Irizarry} seemed to take particular offense at an argument by a prosecutor… who suggested that prosecutors merely wanted to avoid the expense and hassle of having to separate attorney-client emails from other emails sent via {CorrLinks}.

That’s right — DOJ says it gets to read attorney client emails, because it would be too expensive to cull non-attorney client emails!

[Jackpine Radical]

1. And face-to-face consultations are subject to eavesdropping as well.

I was once warned by a defense attorney that a particular county jail was notorious for leaving the intercom on in an interview room when psychologists or attorneys met with incarcerated defendants. They would notify the prosecutors of appointments with defense counsel & let them listen in on the supposedly privileged conversations.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. I realize the title wasn't your's; but ...

shouldn't the article's title have been:

DoJ must respect the attorney/client privilege.

I mean ... that is what Judge Dora Irizarry ruled.

[Jim Lane]

3. Yes and no.

Your suggested title reflects the ruling.

The actual title reflects the DoJ position. On a message board where any criticism of President Obama is met with a chorus of denunciations of Republicans in Congress, who obstruct everything he wants to do, reporting the DoJ position is worthwhile. I seriously doubt that Boehner and McConnell rammed through a bill (over his veto?) that required the DoJ to try to read attorney-client emails. That the DoJ even took this position is attributable strictly to the executive branch.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Reflected ...

reflectED the DoJ's position. The DoJ, largely, follows the law.

[Jim Lane]

5. Yes, that 1/2 of the glass is full. Or maybe that 1/89 of the glass.

The metaphor of the glass is apt here. If you choose to focus on the Obama administration's decision not to commit outright criminality, no one can deny that that's a good thing, and no one can produce any evidence of such criminal conduct, at least not yet.

OTOH, some of us are also entitled to the view that for the DoJ to even attempt to persuade a judge to approve this practice is significant -- and is not the Hope and Change we had in mind when we were campaigning for Obama in 2008. (I will admit that, by the time we voted for him in 2012, it was clear that this kind of thing was not out of the question.)

There's even the possibility that the headline reflectS the DoJ's position wherever the DoJ can still take that position. It would not be outright criminality for the DoJ to appeal this decision, or to argue (correctly) that the decision is not legally binding in any of the 88 other federal judicial districts. So don't count your half a glass before it's hatched.

[sweetexile]

6. civil infidelities

Here we go again-we seem to get a bone or two from the gov, but there's always a ploy involved.