Trump Is Close to Being Right on the Attorney-Client Privilege—But for All the Wrong Reasons
Although for an entirely wrong reason, the president wasn't too far away from being right about the present condition of the privilege.
April 23, 2018 at 06:54 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Since the FBI seized the files of the president's personal attorney, legal experts have been stepping up by the dozens to show us that the president's announcement of the death of the attorney-client privilege was premature, and that—thankfully in a system that prides itself in the rights afforded defendants—this basic due-process safeguard is alive and well. Even Kellyanne Conway's husband, a well-known Big Law litigator, got into the act, citing Justice Department policy respectful of the privilege:
Because of the potential effects of [the seizure of a lawyer's files] on legitimate attorney-client relationships and because of the possibility that, during such a search, the government may encounter material protected by a legitimate claim of privilege, it is important that close control be exercised over this type of search.
Normally, if President Donald Trump ever got anything right—even Halley's comet passes along every 70-some years—I might very well not, out of sheer anger, concede it. The following statement then, based on the importance of the topic, is an exception: While the attorney-client privilege is by no means dead, it lies wounded—hidden in plain view, as it were—in modern practice. Although for an entirely wrong reason, the president wasn't too far away from being right about the present condition of the privilege.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission’: Another Consequence of 'Hobby Lobby'?
8 minute readAI and Social Media Fakes: Are You Protecting Your Brand?
Neighboring States Have Either Passed or Proposed Climate Superfund Laws—Is Pennsylvania Next?
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1US Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Brought Under NYC Gender Violence Law, Ruling Claims Barred Under State Measure
- 24th Circuit Upholds Virginia Law Restricting Online Court Records Access
- 3Lawsuit Against Major Food Brands Could Be Sign of Emerging Litigation Over Processed Foods
- 4Fellows LaBriola LLP is Pleased to Announce that Alisha Goel Has Become Associated with The Firm
- 5Law Firms Turn to 'Golden Handcuffs' to Rein In Partner Movement
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250