Crypto-chaps on scam rap in a flap over Slack chat tap, want court case zapped: 'Attorney-client priv info' in messages Two men accused of running a cryptocurrency scam have asked for the entire case to be thrown out – because prosecutors may have accidentally obtained and read Slack conversations the duo had with their lawyers. Sohrab Sharma and Robert Farkas claim search warrants sought by investigators prior to their arrest for allegedly …
"...one of those attorneys that the would-be entrepreneurs were discussing their case with over Slack is John Lambert, a man who was recently arrested for allegedly posing as an attorney online. He isn't a lawyer..."
But according to Attorney General Barr's testimony to the Senate yesterday, if you REALLY AND TRULY believe something, then that makes it true! So, as long as they BELIEVED that Lambert was a lawyer, then anything they said actually WAS privileged!
Billy Barr's bearish bumbling aside, it does appear that US courts have defined attorney-client privilege as applying only if the purported attorney is actually a member of the bar, or a subordinate of one - though I can see a judge extending it in a case where someone fraudulently claimed to be an attorney and the client had a legitimate belief that was true.
But in this particular case, I wouldn't be surprised if a judge ruled that using Slack demonstrated a failure to maintain the reasonable expectation of privacy, which implicitly waives ACP.
I am deathly curious: putting "Privileged Information" on the header/footer of an email does not necessarily maintain attorney client privilege - was this even done?
More importantly, privileged information status expires if the information is shown to other parties - i.e. other Slack members who were part of the relevant Slack groups.
Seems like bollocks on par with their "business offering", to me.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
