Vice President Mike Pence discovered classified documents in Indiana home

Only if Biden claims attorney client privilege. That in itself would be showing a lack of transparency, though he certainly has the right to claim it, if applicable. To be applicable, it doesn’t just have to be his lawyer, it has to involve legal advice. If, as we are told, he had no idea that there were classified documents in his office, then how is cleaning out his office legal advice? Now once the classified documents are found, any advice after that would be privileged.

1 Like

According to the BBC, Biden’s cache included top secret.

When people in our office even talked at a distance concerning classified subjects, we used a scrambled phone. It often sounded garbled so I called it the cone of silence. Anyone as old as me would know where I got that from.

2 Likes

That’s not how it works. Biden doesn’t have to claim attorney-client privilege, he has it. Unless he waives it, and specifically instructs his attorneys to testify (and only with the full knowledge of exactly what they would testify to), they could never be called to the stand.

2 Likes

Attorney client privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney. That is exactly how it works. And he can’t claim attorney client privilege if the work involved is not legal work. There is no automatic attorney client privilege if I hire an attorney to drive my car. I have to claim the task involved legal advice.

Attorney-client privilege does belong to the client - that’s my point. The client doesn’t have to “claim” anything - the privilege is theirs, unless they waive it.

No, you don’t have to “claim” anything - the privilege exista as soon as you form a client relationship with a lawyer - and will continue to exist until the client affirmatively waives it.

But more importantly, a lawyer’s obligations to their client extend much farther than attorney-client privilege (which is a Rule of Evidence).

If a lawyer were to testify against their client in any way, absent very few limited situations, they’d be disbarred. It is a violation of the most fundemental rules of legal ethics.

I don’t recall, but I am sure Agent 86 could figure it out.

And I disagree. Whatever your relationship is, privilege only applies to legal work. With nothing more added, cleaning out office documents is not legal work…at least not unless you know or expect there are illegally held documents in those files that could require legal advice if found.
Biden claims he was surprised to find there were classified documents among his documents. Since he had no such expectation, moving those files could not be legal work.
Now, I don’t believe for a second that he didn’t know there were classified files there…thus the lawyer…but that is contrary to what he has been saying.

1 Like

This isn’t a matter of opinion. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant.

Having a lawyer oversee an office move to ensure various documents are treated the way they should be is legal work, whether or not a client knows or expects classified documents to be found there - and there are endless other reasons why legal assistance would be required during such a move that have nothing to do with classified documents or any “crimes” at all.

No. No more than giving business advice would be privileged just because you are an attorney. Serving as a mover of papers is not legal advice. Sorry, you are just mistaken.

2 Likes

:rofl:

Of course. No doubt your Googling skills outweigh my law degree and good standing with the Bar Ethics Committee.

2 Likes

Aren’t you special. I was admitted to the Texas Bar in 1972. Sorry, you need to come up with the support just like normal people.

2 Likes

Then you are no doubt familiar with Rule 1.05 of the Texas Disiplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, and already know my “support.”

Where in the world did you get the impression thar anyone claimed the lawyers were there only to “move papers?”

So…you can google, can you?
Are you in the Texas state bar?

No, I’m not a member of the Texas bar - but every jurisdiction has that rule (and it’s almost always “Rule 1.5” or “Rule 1.05”).

There has been no other reason given. When Biden admits they were there to figure out what to do with classified documents, then he can likely claim privilege and admit that he lied when he said he was surprised to find classified documents. As of the current time, all he has said is that they were there to move papers.
All of which was my obvious point from the beginning.

3 Likes

Texas bar pamphlet:

For the privilege to apply, the communication must be made for,the purpose of helping a lawyer provide legal services to the client”

https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Our_Legal_System1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=23457#:~:text=The%20privilege%20belongs%20to%20the,lawyer%20and%20client%2C%20among%20others.

1 Like

No one is under any obligation to tell you.

You see, this makes it very difficult for me to believe you when you say you’re a member of the bar - because I’ve never heard a lawyer misunderstand how the privilege works the way you have.

The privilege applies to legal communications - not legal “activities.” If Biden told his lawyers something as simple as observe the moving of his office to ensure all documents and materials were treated appropriately, that’s a request for legal advice, and everything they could possibly respond with would be legal advice.

But the point I’m trying to get to is different - it’s about testimony, not documentary evidence. As I’ve already shown, a lawyer is ethically obligated to never testify adversarially to their client except: (1) with the clients informed consent; (2) to prevent a future crime or fraud; (3) a court order; (4) or a few other reasons related to billing and requesting certain kinds of advice.

You are being ridiculous. Yes it is communications. You are doing everything you can to deflect from the obvious.
“My attorney was driving because there was the possibility we would be in a wreck and would need legal advice related to that possible wreck”.
What nonsense.
As to whether you think I am lying about my being in the Texas bar, you can believe what you like. And I don’t wear my Bar membership on my sleeve like some, anyway.

3 Likes

So you seriously believe if you saw a business law client of yours be in an automobile crash, you are obligated not to testify about the wreck?