[silentmars]

The fifth amendment only covers criminal caes - in fact, technically only covers felonies. The implication for this case is that the lawyers can refuse to answer questions with an assertion of their fifth amendment rights, and if and when they should ever be tried for those crimes then in that case it would be forbidden for the prosecution to mention that they did that or draw any inferences from it. There is no such protection in a civil case, however. You have no right to "not answer questions because it might help the other guys who are suing me win."

I am not a lawyer this is not legal advice, etc etc, but there are other examples in civil cases of where this kind of thing can be used against you. I have a lawyer friend who does personal injury cases, and one of the first things lawyers do in those cases is send spoilation letters to the insurance companies demanding that they preserve any evidence. Absent this, it's common practice for insurance companies to have totaled vehicles destroyed, for example. If they destroy any evidence after receiving a spoilation letter, then in the lawsuit the jury will be instructed to assume that the destroyed evidence showed things in as favorable a light as possible to the other party.