Then there is the suit itself. Marty, you make some good points but I counted four emails that look like they were internal that it cited. 

Sipeut is a pretty major firm in whistleblower cases according to their website. I don't know I'd take a case with such serious ramifications on just four internal documents nor would I go so public with it or level charges against "a prominent attorney" in Minnesota. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who that is. Mr. Anderson is one of the most powerful figures in the profession. That's one heck of a risk to take with no evidence. This makes me think there is more we haven't seen yet. 

Perhaps this was just meant to be a means to probe SNAPS response? I guess we will find out more when and if it goes to trial. SNAP has a history of keeping its internal communications so secret that they are willing to defy judges orders.

If those communications have been compromised, then whatever is in them must be big & beyond the usual privacy argument?