News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]. Parent comment

Re:USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney... by gamblor956 on Wednesday June 24, 2020 @10:08PM (#23636137)
That's irrelevant from the point of view of the privilege applying. What matters is that the communication was for the purposes of soliciting legal advice from an attorney, otherwise the DA could just subpoena an attorney that the defendant talked to but was unable to afford or who was too busy to handle the particulars of the defendant's case.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney... by mc32 on Wednesday June 24, 2020 @10:21PM (#23636226)
That's not how I read it:

"The establishment of the attorney-client relationship involves two elements: a person seeks advice or assistance from an attorney; and the attorney appears to give, agrees to give or gives the advice or assistance[1]"

and

"That “special relationship” between an attorney and his/her client is generally established by mutual assent/consent. This is most often confirmed by a written “retainer”[2]"

Other states have similar determinants.

[1]https://www.lsba.org/PracticeAidGuide/PAG1.aspx

[2]https://attorneys.uslegal.com/malpractice/establishing-the-a...

[ Parent | on HN ]