I read a story yesterday[1] how the policy inside Google is to cc their legal department on any emails that you think could make the company look bad in any future legal proceedings. As I understand it, this shields the email from discovery.
As one there before, during, after that little DoJ/IE kurfluffle, I recall the guidelines to be simple: there are things you don't talk about in email[0]. Which is why this Google thing mystifies me: why are you talking about it in email at all? And then to rely on what sounds like some crackpot legal theory? (I mean, maybe it's not, and IANAL, but it reeks of "sovereign citizens don't have to pay taxes".)
[0] Yes, that is a vast oversimplification (though accurate) to make a point.
> Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to sanction Google LLC (Google) for its extensive and intentional efforts to misuse the attorney-client privilege to hide business documents relevant to this case. Google has explicitly and repeatedly instructed its employees to shield important business communications from discovery by using false requests for legal advice. These efforts directly harmed Plaintiffs, undermined their discovery efforts, and subverted the judicial process. The Court should sanction Google and order the full production of withheld and redacted emails where in-house counsel was included in a communication between non-attorneys and did not respond. Alternatively, the Court should hold these silent-attorney emails are not privileged and immediately order their production.
That's what the DoJ is alleging; it's not clear what "theory Google was operating under". The DoJ may be right or wrong, and separately, they may be on a wild goose chase.
one thing that they teach you in this sort of training (never a Googler but been at at other big names) is that it is not a blank check to shield all emails from discovery by just cc-ing legal.
At my employer, where where everyone has to undergo multiple types of ethics training every year, I think they would view this as "willful ignorance," which they say is not a defense for anything. Plus, they tell us to contact legal only when we think something has been done to violate the ethics guidelines, not to prevent it from happening in the first place.
Did you have similar guidelines inside Microsoft?
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30760923