Anthony, thanks for the comment. By “the main issue” I just mean the underlying First Amendment issue, rather than the issue of compliance with the MLAT, standing, the grounds for intervention, etc.

Chris, I took your point to be that even if it were very clear that Price had disclosed the contents of the interview, there would still be a viable claim of privilege:

“Going further, say for the sake of argument that all of your conditions were met: Dolours Price made specific comments in public about the McConville murder and the BC tapes, and those statements were precisely described and documented. Would that constitute a waiver of confidentiality? The answer is still no.”

This is the point I was challenging—obviously the mere assertion of a waiver is not enough, but that wasn’t your thought experiment.

having read your take I think we can extrapolate from the abuse of discretion point being made by BC that the college does not in fact go to the main issue at all. It in fact seeks to avoid it. It is highly unlikely that the college will break any new ground with this approach. It echoes its earlier legal strategy of turning up on the Andy Warhol principle, but only to stand with its hands in its pockets once asked by the court to show the colour of its money

Anthony

If you were representing a client who had an extraordinarily sensitive conflict with federal prosecutors, and a single thinly sourced news story appeared in a newspaper saying that your client had talked to a reporter about the matter, would you shrug and say that your discussions with your client were no longer confidential? Would you stop protecting your client? Would you turn over your client’s records to the government, and point to the newspaper story as your justification for doing so?