<story><title>Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]</title><url>https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.373179/gov.uscourts.cand.373179.469.0.pdf</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>tracker1</author><text>Some businesses, not sure on google, will actually have lawyers on &lt;i&gt;most&lt;/i&gt; meetings in order to circumvent subpoenas as it&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;protected&amp;quot; discussions that way...  I don&amp;#x27;t recall the details, just rememember seeing a report on the practice.</text></item><item><author>AlbertCory</author><text>&amp;gt; The record demonstrates otherwise. An abundance of evidence establishes that
Google employees routinely used Chat to discuss substantive business topics, including matters relevant to this antitrust litigation.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Google left employees largely on their own to determine what Chat
communications might be relevant to the many critical legal and factual issues in this complex antitrust litigation.&lt;p&gt;All true. I&amp;#x27;m just glad I wasn&amp;#x27;t subpoena&amp;#x27;ed.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Off the record&amp;quot; on a chat was often interpreted as &amp;quot;anything goes&amp;quot; including by people who should have known better. It should not have been, and I definitely heard lawyers say &amp;quot;if it&amp;#x27;s something you wouldn&amp;#x27;t want to come out in court, then don&amp;#x27;t say it via the computer, whether it&amp;#x27;s on OR off the record.&amp;quot;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>runnerup</author><text>&amp;quot;If you&amp;#x27;re committing an ongoing crime and you involve your lawyer in it, there&amp;#x27;s no privilege involved. &lt;i&gt;That&amp;#x27;s not an attorney. It&amp;#x27;s an accomplice.&lt;/i&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;doctorcleveland.blogspot.com&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;don-corleones-guide-to-attorney-client.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;doctorcleveland.blogspot.com&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;don-corleones-gu...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; 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&amp;#x27;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.</text></comment>
<story><title>Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]</title><url>https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.373179/gov.uscourts.cand.373179.469.0.pdf</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>tracker1</author><text>Some businesses, not sure on google, will actually have lawyers on &lt;i&gt;most&lt;/i&gt; meetings in order to circumvent subpoenas as it&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;protected&amp;quot; discussions that way...  I don&amp;#x27;t recall the details, just rememember seeing a report on the practice.</text></item><item><author>AlbertCory</author><text>&amp;gt; The record demonstrates otherwise. An abundance of evidence establishes that
Google employees routinely used Chat to discuss substantive business topics, including matters relevant to this antitrust litigation.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Google left employees largely on their own to determine what Chat
communications might be relevant to the many critical legal and factual issues in this complex antitrust litigation.&lt;p&gt;All true. I&amp;#x27;m just glad I wasn&amp;#x27;t subpoena&amp;#x27;ed.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Off the record&amp;quot; on a chat was often interpreted as &amp;quot;anything goes&amp;quot; including by people who should have known better. It should not have been, and I definitely heard lawyers say &amp;quot;if it&amp;#x27;s something you wouldn&amp;#x27;t want to come out in court, then don&amp;#x27;t say it via the computer, whether it&amp;#x27;s on OR off the record.&amp;quot;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>twoodfin</author><text>If you want to hear SCOTUS explore the limits of attorney-client privilege, including extensive discussion on just this practice, the oral arguments for &lt;i&gt;In re Grand Jury&lt;/i&gt; are well worth a listen:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.oyez.org&amp;#x2F;cases&amp;#x2F;2022&amp;#x2F;21-1397&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.oyez.org&amp;#x2F;cases&amp;#x2F;2022&amp;#x2F;21-1397&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;(SCOTUS ultimately decided to punt the case.)</text></comment>