master to ensure that the attorney client privilege and work product protections that a vital law firm's clients are protected and only responsive non privileged documents are released executed a search and seizure on the process of law from and and obtain numerous records the government seized a client file of law firm for a client who is the target of an investigation the government also sees more than fifty thousand dollars e mails from the inbox and outbox of lawyer who is also said to be a target with respect that will be weird a representation of  relationship between a lawyer a and client a yes or and with them between client a and the law firm correct sir so almost all of these e mails however do not appear to have any  counsel aside from the number of e mails what other evidence did the law firm put in front of a judge to would indicate that privileged material beyond black was the off with a significant number of lawyers and they were collaboratively like many people do in law firms and talk about each other's cases and communicate with each other by themselves face so not only the e mails include references to work product with respect to lawyer and his clients unrelated to client a totally but it also includes references to lawyer is interaction with his partners in the law firm about other  day at all and if anything then return now so nothing's been returned so the government if they contested good they have all the emails they have emails relating what do i do with this client comes in here and his is usually was a discussion about his tax returns will last ten years and any e mail that lawyer a entire load of e mails and so yes the firm has a copy although look borjas you could have an answer to judge russians question can you yes because the question is what percentage are privileged and of privileged documents are in there i don't know where every single one of them is produce although one could make the argument that since it involved the actions of law firms that there are likely to be almost all cripples either that's the work well if you postpone the communications between law firms and his clients this is what in the civil context would be called a prude review with what important distinction privileges reviews and sill cont the real prosecutors are up and ball more that's what they say and it that clings without i don't think it does though because they're still an adversary part they're still have or serry party date they are well the ones who are not the holders of the privilege they are in fact adverse to the to the it could be delegated to a magistrate judge but article three delegation that has to stay within the court system has to say within the courts so what are they supposed to do when they conduct a search they have to actually return instead of point they should do what they did in the stewart case in the southern district of new york and they said we're going to segregate these we're not going to look at him and went away to see what the court does are you familiar with that case and six circuit there all the all these things are called united states versus in those circumstances where the crack fraud sessions got up like everything ritual that by that i could see circumstances there were a filter he would be appropriate but where you have a large law firm like we do here that has many partners and where you have a lawyer who is said to be involved with only one client there is no claim here that there is any criminal activity between anybody except lawyer and client and nobody else know what clients are accused any and all of those that one here a magistrate judge found probable cause to believe that target lawyer day was employed by the law firm obstructed justice and used his law form firms resources to do so he engaged in conduct that threatens to destroy the judicial process to federal judges familiar with the facts of this case have appointed a court supervised those are that review has protected privileged matters and has already been substantially completed the government has made several attempts to further mitigate any risk of a breach of privilege but the law firm has explicitly rejected such as house we asked that this court affirmed the district court procedure because it's limited incursion of privilege is outweighed by the public's strong interest in rooting out for more on our i don't know where i would like to begin by answering a couple of your honest questions regarding some of the things that a lot from could have done to mitigate the harm of the perceived harm to its clients the government here has undertaken three significant efforts in addition to the already mandated poor bills for you to mitigate any harm but so far st immediately after the service the government asked the law firm for a list of clients in and talk to you about a criminal matter yes i have your honor and that's protected by attorney client privilege and you have an attorney client relationship is the existence of that relationship prior to the charge or something in the public record is that any of the government's business so that whether it's answer that yes or no it is not protected by privilege it enters the existence of it is if you that it's not a matter of public record it's none of the government's business certainly the content of communication between fine or acted the nature of the relationship between the i am aware but the mere fact prior to an indictment prior to a charge prior something in the public record the government just can't come in and say to the lawyer tell me who your clients are the you can do that can you you can come in and ask with good lawyer can say no not will tell you my clients are the client can say no as well then i think the client can say no to and this protocol says that you that there's taint team is authorized to contact the clients directly and ask them for a waiver now who came up with an id so that would be that's a direct violation of the code of professional responsibility comp making a direct contact to apply and represented a client that you know is represented you all want to do that in those protocols that were approved before those shirts were ever conducted that just team was going to be able to go out and talked to the clients directly and ask them for a  multiple reasons why the government would need to do so to see who the new council was effectuate of a proper waiver of that privileged here the government was operating at all times under the auspices of the corps and so any such  well that's in the sealed appendix that hasn't been file but it's a page four or page three of the top of the attachment about things to be seized in the filter team's practice the filter team may contact the attorneys kline's to obtain waivers of the attorney client privilege make contact with the attorneys clients so i believe you're on about that provision is that can't you agree with team i think whether the filter team was it is proper in this situation that's pressure multiple lawyer law firm with a multiple client law firm that you're only looking for the communications if you grew up on the farm understand little bit about what that is your honor to go through exactly what the agents are doing in this case they are reviewing the e mails for evidence of crimes are committed out and they have ended and they and the but whether the talks about the obvious flaw in the tainting procedure calling the government spock's is left in charge of the appellant's in the house and may here mind a gladder malice as well as my honest differences of opinion that's the six circuit case that i've been talking about we don't believe that there's st of all there is no you don't believe you think that that these things are all right to do that you've got it all written in the in the u s attorney's manual  that you used the sealed appendix to that they don't have of the it is not in the record on appeal that they didn't dispute the district where we got it we had it out that sealed appendix i understand you're alright there's no charges here the question here is whether it was what the government is whether there's bills or team probably a point in the circumstances this case that's the issue here is i understand it can have to do with the scope of the warran critical and evaluate that in a vacuum without any context whatsoever well actually do more harm for the privilege than help it because the asians in the case will not be able to assess whether this is in fact some  correspondence if you went back to the old pre light conduct days would be as if they see every single piece of correspondence a lawyer write even though they saw a file that said client case file here it is presumably that's where they should stop but preliminary injunction from the district court telling them they couldn't do that he also said that the court is doing review through the cult team the court is not doing a review the route is being done by members of the executive  branch and article three judges i respectfully suggest cannot delegate your usual option to a member of the executive which is what the protocols allow just for my clarify my understanding my understanding law firm and the government is that right i think that's essentially correct or are from my standpoint that doesn't matter because in the end in the initial step government agents and government usas are making the group this is defendant who has already has an attorney and as potentially been in trouble with the law hop previously been and there's a warrants i had to seize his email because of new crimes he's implicate us and and so in this it circumstance to then take that filter team concept that may apply with as a couple of documents that are that in the course of a search or turn should say be your boss earn competent all confidentiality in terms of the filter team because one can be competently determined privilege on and on another  new trust and there will be believe bleaching or into the other side of the prosecutorial to whom it's really the confidence issue and it's not and it's not a question of the honor of the u s is involved the agents i t's the fact that the whole concept of the attorney client privilege is that you are you the client are willing to tell your lawyer your innermost secrets in confidence and some of which may not be flattering all some which may back talk about it legally a year that you had to pass and what do i do about it and you have to have a confidence that when you relate that information to the attorney it's going to protect that's the whole idea  presents because both from appearance and reality what you have is the adverse part and at worst are saying i'm going to do the privileged review for you it would be as if in a civil context people would think it would be absurd tell you what i'll let mr mallock who's in my office he'll look at the per your privilege documents and he'll have a debate with you about whether or not the groups and he promises he won't be involved in the case and simple but it was as ridiculous nobody would do that that that's not permissible but that's law firm has clients they have privileges it's law firms i'll get in to protect those class programs as and that's the reason we asked the court below to say take them out of the government's hands if the government wants to continue to search they can and they can do it by the only way out of special ops going to talk to the lawyers if they know the like they can trust a lawyer and they know what they say is going to be protected and the only way the lawyer and give good legal advice is if the client gets in the way of investing even though it cost time and it costs money and it's not as efficient as if when the government government can come in and they can review it themselves it's not just that i can see that but it's the cost of having a