[gamblor956]

Lawyers aren't allowed to identify their clients if the identities of their clients are unknown. It's part of attorney-client privilege.

Skadden has made use of in the past to hide their work for Putin affiliates. It's the reason that Skadden is the largest firm by revenue despite the lackluster quality of their work. (For an example of how bad Skadden is at the practice of law, see the clusterfuck that is the Twitter termination litigation.)

[thebooktocome]

Mere identity is not usually covered under attorney-client privilege, I’m not sure why you think it would be.

Here’s a semi-recent analysis of the situation.

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2020/05/fifth...

[tiahura]

I’m not sure why you think it would be.

Probably because it is confidential and most people, and many attorneys, don’t understand that privilege and confidentiality are terms of art with distinct meanings.

[tiahura]

You’re confusing privilege with confidentiality.

From YKW, and squares with my very foggy recollection from PR.

—

Sure, I'll outline some key differences and similarities between privilege and confidentiality in the context of legal practice, specifically regarding client identification.

*Privilege*

1. Privilege is a legal concept that protects certain communications between an attorney and their client from being disclosed in legal proceedings.

2. It can be waived by the client, and there are certain exceptions to privilege, such as the crime-fraud exception.

3. However, the scope of privilege is generally limited to the content of communications themselves and doesn't typically extend to information about the client's identity, except in rare circumstances where the disclosure of the client's identity would reveal the substance of a confidential communication.

*Confidentiality*

1. Confidentiality, on the other hand, is a professional ethical obligation that requires lawyers to keep information related to the representation of a client secret, unless the client gives informed consent or the disclosure is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation.

2. This duty of confidentiality is broader than privilege and may cover information the lawyer learned from any source about the client, including the client's identity in many circumstances.

3. Unlike privilege, a breach of confidentiality can lead to professional sanctions for the lawyer, but it may not provide the same protections from disclosure in legal proceedings.

*Comparison and Contrast*

1. Both privilege and confidentiality are essential to ensure the free flow of information between a lawyer and their client, fostering trust in the lawyer-client relationship. They both serve to protect the client's interests.

2. However, privilege is a legal concept subject to legal exceptions and waivers, and it protects from forced disclosure in court, while confidentiality is a broader ethical duty that extends beyond the courtroom.

3. In most cases, the identity of a client isn't protected by privilege, but it may be covered by the duty of confidentiality depending on the context. If revealing the client's identity could harm the client or betray a confidence, then the lawyer has a duty to keep that information confidential.

This is a simplified summary and these concepts can get complicated in real-life situations. Always consider local and jurisdiction-specific rules and case law when dealing with privilege and confidentiality.

[gamblor956]

Yeah, I actually meant confidentiality. I typed that out too quickly and never came back to update the comment.