[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Java in Debian advice result



On Monday 05 March 2007 05:17:50 am Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:10:33PM +0000, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> > On 2/28/07, John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote:
> > >to summarize the situation here.  SPI's attorney has asked that his
> > >messages not be posted to public mailing lists for reasons of
> > >attorney-client privilege.
> >
> > Please could you elaborate on whom this secrecy is intended to
> > protect, and in what way?
> >
> > I thought attorney-client privilege was a mechanism intended to
> > protect sensitive information disclosed by the client to the attorney
> > (facilitating honest and open communication without the client having
> > to worry about information being leaked to enemies, competitors or the
> > authorities). Assuming this is the case, it seems a bit strange that
> > the request for secrecy should be coming from the *attorney*'s side...
> >
> > I could well be talking bollocks here, and I apologise in advance if
> > that's the case, but I have to say that that's the inference I got.
> > Clarification welcome.
>
> (Standard IANAL lawyer disclaimers apply)
>
> I thought that attorney-client privilege was something invoked (is that
> the right word?) by the client.  The attorney can only invoke it if the
> information he is being asked to reveal somehow reveals some protected
> information of the client.  I would think that since SPI is the client,
> they can unilaterally decide to make the information public.

Everything said here is correct, the client is free to wave attorney client 
privilege whenever they like.  However, a lawyer is correct to advise a 
client not to do so, because it can never be "unwaived."  If the information 
in question were to be shared on d-l, it would pass beyond the protection and 
become available to everyone, including those who may someday attempt to sue 
debian, SPI, or a related 3rd party.

So, from the lawyer's perspective, it is a matter of client-attorney 
privilege.  SPI now has to make the decision that full disclosure to the 
public via d-l is worth the potential risk of losing that protection.  My 
guess would be the lawyer has done the research on how one could bring suit 
against Debian/SPI/3rd party and disclosure would be like handing a roadmap 
to "the enemy."  You generally want to make the cost of bringing suit against 
you as high as possible to warred off long-shot litigation.

This is the difference between the threat of liability and the threat of 
litigation.  The lawyer may be convinced there will not be liability, but 
litigation itself is expensive, even if you win.  Making it that much easier 
for a plaintiff to file suite, because you've given him all the research, is 
generally considered a bad idea.

-Sean

Disclaimer: I am all but licensed in California, but not yet.  Even if I were, 
the above does not constitute legal advice as it does not contain specific 
facts.

-- 
Sean Kellogg
e: skellogg@gmail.com
w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/

So, let go
 ...Jump in
  ...Oh well, what you waiting for?
   ...it's all right
    ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown



Reply to: