← The Legal Department![In-House Privilege Redux: Diana Feinstein, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP [E89] — The Legal Department cover](https://feeds.podetize.com/lq2I4WHBm.jpg)
The Legal Department
In-House Privilege Redux: Diana Feinstein, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP [E89]
00:34:06
Loading summary
Transcript73 lines
- [00:01]
A
My name is Diana Feinstein. I am a partner at Gibson Dunn Crutcher in Los Angeles. And a fun fact about me is despite being quite good at school, I received an F in PE
- [00:15]
B
welcome to the Legal Department, a podcast for lawyers who want to learn, connect and grow their careers. I'm Stacey Bratcher. I'm a general counsel and I'm excited to share these conversations to help you level up in house on today's episode of the Legal Department. I'm really excited to welcome back for another discussion on privilege Diana Feinstein, who's a partner in the litigation and white collar group at Gibson Dunn. She was an early adopter of the legal department. She was a guest in episode three where we talked about privilege for the first time. And I'm really excited to have her back. Thanks for being here, Diana.
- [00:56]
A
I'm great. Thank you for having me back. And it's amazing. I said I was honored to be welcomed back again. You have such an esteemed list of folks who have come and spoken to you, but thank you for having me.
- [01:08]
B
Love to have you back. As we were talking before we got on, you are one of the few people I know who is been in the trenches litigating privilege. And I think especially in house, people don't always realize that it is something that we need to mind and cultivate and maintain and guard and I want to get into it. So going to refer everybody back to episode three where we went over some brass tacks. It was a really fun conversation, but we're going to kind of talk about updates around privilege. And you and I were talking last year actually because there were several developments. The INRAE first Energy case and some other cases that were really challenging in house privilege. So why don't we just start with some basics. What are kind of the rules of the road that in house counsel need to know about when maintaining attorney client privilege?
- [01:59]
A
The most important rule of the road rule, the number one rule of the road is legal advice is privilege, not business advice. But what that means in actual practicality is a whole mess of things. And the way that courts come out on things is not always predictable. So what that means for in house counsel is there are certain types of things you can take into account when you are engaging with your business team members. And then it's really important, almost more important that you educate your business colleagues about what they can do to increase the chances, I will never say insure increase the chances of maintaining privilege should there be some legal fight down the way which happens all too frequently.
- [02:45]
B
Well, and just talk about on that difference between legal and business advice, because there is a push and I think in house, lawyers are encouraged to be business enablers, be included early on in deal conversations and strategy, and some of those conversations become relevant down the road in a dispute context. How do we ensure that those communications are privileged?
- [03:11]
A
Not ensure, but increase the likelihood. First of all, the first way to do it is obviously label the document or the email. Privilege and confidential or attorney work product. Right. So labeling. Right. And then making sure that you tell your business teams when they're emailing you to label their emails that way. Okay. That of course can go the other way. You don't want to over label. We can get into a whole series of discussion about what happens when you over label. But labeling things.
- [03:39]
B
Okay.
- [03:40]
A
And I think I've mentioned this when we spoke before. If you're in the legal department or even a member of legal department, like a paralegal or an assistant to a gc, if you can have something in your signature line or something like that, it indicates you're legal. That always helps. But the tried and true way to look at this is ask yourself if somebody like a judge looking at this email or this text message or this Google document five years from now would say, oh yeah, this person is actually soliciting legal advice as part of this business discussion or this person is actually providing it versus this is just a business discussion they've copied in a lawyer because they've copied in 10 other people, but does not have any element of seeking or providing legal advice. It's an art, it's not a science. But there are certainly things that you can include when you're communicating on these subjects that will tell the judge later on, oh yeah, this was legal advice. So it's as simple as putting the lawyer on the to line and not the CC line. It's directing it to the lawyer. It's saying it can be mixed. Right. We've got this business issue. We're looking at what, how we should develop this particular product. But we also know that there are legal implications. Stacey, can you please weigh in on X? Right. That alone, Gold, I wouldn't have any concern that would not be considered privileged by a court. It's when and it's important that I think in house counsel are involved. I am so grateful. I would do a lot of work now with technology companies. I am grateful that they have product counsel and even better if they have litigation counsel involved early when they're developing products and workshops. But it's important to like demarcate why they're involved as much as you can.
- [05:25]
B
I've started doing some education around that and one thing I've seen before copying Stacy for privilege, has that ever come up in a litigation context?
- [05:35]
A
And yes it has and it's not good. And what people need to understand can't be so obvious about it. It needs to be genuine. So let me just tell you about how it works and like let me tell you a war story of how it worked. Fortunately was not involved in this. But Google faced the case sanctions motion by the US Government in a matter claiming that they intentionally trained their employees to just copy a lawyer cc in for privilege, those types of things and the government moved for sanctions against Google based on that. Now the judge ultimately did not grant them said I don't think I can assuming this what the government's theory is here is correct. I don't think I can punish somebody for actions taken before this case. But made the lawyers in that case go back and re review like 100,000 or something emails where they call them silent attorney emails where the attorneys were put on there but they didn't see any response back from the attorneys and they were focused on the fact that there was a training that Google had done called communicate with care or something like that. Types of things that we're talking about right now on this podcast. Okay. But that was used against Google which I think is outrageous by the way. Like I think you should be wanting to have these types of trainings but it was used against them. So overuse and anything that looks like it's being done intentionally to include a lawyer just to privilege it, that can really backfire.
- [07:06]
B
Yeah, that is a really hot take and I want to underline that for the listeners. I'm going to try to find a link to that Google case. Maybe you can give it to me so I can share it. Well, let's talk about training. So there was a case in 2024 that I wanted to talk about. I don't know if I'm going to be able to pronounce it right. It's in Ray Disco Yantis antitrust litigation. It was an antitrust case and an in house lawyer had done some training about antitrust sort of rules of the road and it was a PowerPoint document and the court found that training, that legal training was not privileged. And I really wanted to talk about that because that's something that in house counsel pride themselves that we are trying to be ahead of the curve. I do a lot of trainings, you Want to, it's prophylactic, you want to avoid problems. And so it is disappointing that the court sort of punished the company for doing that. So what can you tell us about trainings?
- [08:04]
A
Well, first of all, I can't pronounce the name of that case, so we'll just say that case. But I was looking in that case. There's a long history actually in particular about antitrust compliance policy case law out there. I personally don't practice antitrust law. But in this space, trainings in antitrust in particular are a hot topic when it comes to privilege. Ultimately the court there found when you really look at it, I don't think it we should be so overly concerned that you can't train lawyers, can't train their business folks on things legal related in there in particular that basically the judge found like this was more akin, it was more general in nature to business policy, business practices, best practices. It was way more business oriented. And there was in particular like something in the notes of that presentation that specifically said something to the effect of do not rely on this presentation in lieu of specific legal advice. Okay. That was I think the thing that did them in. So strip that out of all your trainings. And I understand why someone said that they didn't want somebody to then feel like they were trained on all these complex legal issues and they could just as a business person make the decision. But that I think case had that particular that just made and the judge reviewed it in camera. So this is another reminder like these are not judges make these decisions on privilege often by looking at the documents in camera. And so they're going to see it
- [09:32]
B
soup to nuts to your earlier comment, like framing it up intentionally as legal advice, not trying to dilute it as, you know, something that's less than legal advice. Seems like a really good takeaway. All right, well I will make sure. And I got to say though, you do want to have, you don't want people to take that PowerPoint and think they're an expert and then this isn't a substitute. We are giving you sort of an overview of what the legal issues are. But in the moment I need you to come to me with legal issues.
- [10:02]
A
And yes, Stacey, the way you just phrased that would have been perfect. And I think again, if that was what the record was in that case, I think it could have gone the other way. Right. But that's what it is when you're thinking as an in house counsel. Again, I'm looking at it later on. What if I could have Written the script. What would have been exactly what you just said? First of all, I put attorney client privilege presentation. By the way, that's an easy tip. But two is just say to them like look, we're going to give you these legal pointers. This is legal advice. However, when you find yourself in one of these situations, we want to make sure you also come and consult us directly. Like just that little thing could have saved that deck from being produced. And I'm not familiar with the case, I don't know how earth shattering it is, but I can tell you from cases I've worked on there are definitely some earth shattering things that you do not want coming out.
- [10:53]
B
Well, I mean email's a nightmare, right? Email and documents and or informal corporate communications are not. We don't want those out and certainly we don't if lawyers are advising, we want to shield those as much as possible.
- [11:06]
A
So I think I said this when we spoke last, but the worst is actually beyond email is text message. I know that's the worst and that's one's hard. Someone asked me, I did a cle, should I label my text messages attorney client privilege? I'm like, I mean bless you if you do, but I don't think that's really realistic. But if you're having a conversation about a legal issue, you should make sure you're including the in house counsel on that text message. Like at a minimum.
- [11:34]
B
Yeah, texts are the worst. Texts are the worst. They're the absolute worst. Well, let's talk about the efforts to try to preserve and label and guard their privilege on conversations. And then there's. Once you have a communication that's out in the world, you know, out in the wild, I always worry and I'm sure other colleagues like me worry, where does it end up? And we try. I always will tell the colleagues, please don't send this or don't forward. But many times it's, they feel like it's easier. Look, the lawyer has framed this up for me and it's easier for me just to forward. What are some of the things we need to know in terms of waiver?
- [12:14]
A
So waiver just at a high level everyone knows is if you share a attorney client communication with somebody who is not the client that waives the privilege unless there is a common interest work product a little bit different cousin of privilege, that's not necessarily waived if you share it with somebody who's not the client as long as they're not considered an adversary and there's an expectation of confidentiality. Still with that person. So work product can actually be shared in a broader place. Actually, to be fair, in that scenario, I'd rather a business person forward the legal advice to another business person directly than the worst would be try and summarize it in their own words and then they're basically relaying quasi, probably incorrect legal advice and then there's no lawyer on it. And so obviously the best thing is if you're going to forward it, to also include the lawyer on the forward. But where I practice a lot, right. I do a lot of internal investigations, government defense and then civil litigation. And there's a lot of trade off decisions when you're doing internal investigations or government work about whether you waive privilege to get beneficial treatment. Treatment.
- [13:25]
B
Yeah, right.
- [13:26]
A
Or if anyone's done internal investigations in employment. I mean, you want to put up certain defenses. You want to say that you did an investigation and part of that is showing all the work you've done. So you basically put it at issue and you waived. So waiver can actually be a good thing and can be helpful. Another common thing, you know, often people, when they do do an internal investigation, they would like to announce the results of that investigation, even at a high level. Like we found no wrongdoing. Right. Even that some people have argued puts it at issue in a later civil context. And people try to get all the nuts and bolts and everything that went into that investigation based on just those headline statements. Waiver can have its benefits. Obviously it can have its downfalls, which would be sharing something. Typically, privilege is maintained at a client. When you say within the company, if it is shared within the group of people who like, must know, need to know. So that's just another pointer.
- [14:20]
B
So let me ask. So if someone comes to me with a legal want my legal advice on something, I respond, give them the advice. And what if two internal people are emailing back and forth with that email and not including me? Is their communication protected?
- [14:38]
A
It can be, and I would certainly argue as somebody's lawyer on their behalf that it is. It gets trickier if they've excluded the lawyer from that communication. But yeah, we withhold things and it's proper to do so if it's reflecting the attorney client, privileged advice in that business person to business person conversation. But removing the lawyer from that conversation, one thing you've taken off the table now that I as the outside counsel would be able to argue for. Right. It's not unheard of. And I get it. Sometimes you need to then take the legal advice and have the Business discussion. Right. So what's important is that business people keep it to the narrow group that it needs to be. Listservs can get people into trouble. Seen court cases where they've literally said, who's on the listserv? How many people are on the listserv. Right, yeah.
- [15:25]
B
The bigger. It looks less privileged.
- [15:28]
A
Yeah, exactly. So, but obviously we have to be realistic. Like, the reason that in house counsel is giving legal advice is for the business to be able to move forward and do or not do something. So we can't hamstrung people to. In their communications. I mean, the best thing is don't put it in writing. I mean, let's just say, like, sorry, that should have been the best rule. I'm sorry. Yeah, just say it orally. Don't write it. That being said, people should know. Obviously, people can get asked questions in depositions. And so it's not like oral communications are free from these issues, but obviously they're not nearly. They People's memories fade and it's just.
- [16:07]
B
Yes, obviously. And I would say just culturally these days, people seem less and less open to having, like, conversations. We're communicating through IM or Slack or. There's a lot of nuance that's missed in that. But I find it's challenging sometimes to get people to like, let's just pick up the phone or let's just get on a zoom call real quick. You mentioned the difference between privilege and work product. And I think it would be helpful just to be kind of 101 with people about what is work product?
- [16:37]
A
Work product, it's material that is prepared either by counsel or at the direction of counsel that reflects the mental impressions or strategy of the attorney. So what's great about work product is it extends beyond lawyers. Only lawyers can give legal advice that's subject to attorney client privilege. But work product can be created by any number of people working at the direction of the lawyers. And it's typically. And the material needs to be prepared either in connection with or in anticipation of litigation, threatened litigation. It can mean regulatory investigation. It doesn't just mean a lawsuit or something like that.
- [17:18]
B
How proximate does it need to be?
- [17:21]
A
Good question. Fairly proximate.
- [17:23]
B
Like, someday this might happen. But like, oh, we've gotten our inquiry. Like, you know, there's a spec meet.
- [17:29]
A
I'm dealing with this right now on a matter, let's put it this way, a whistleblower puts in a complaint about some accounting issues. Okay. And the board convenes a special committee to do an investigation to look into those issues and hires independent counsel. And they don't have a lawsuit from that whistleblower at the moment. They don't have a securities class action if they're a public company. They don't have a regulatory inquiry at this point. But it is anticipated when somebody makes accounting issues of a company that maybe engages with investors or things of that nature, that those things are coming, it's reasonably foreseeable. It's reasonably foreseeable those things are coming. In particular if you don't handle it the right way.
- [18:14]
B
Right, right.
- [18:15]
A
So now maybe that regul. In the case I'm thinking of right now, the regulatory inquiries didn't come until about a year and change later. Right. But that doesn't change the fact. I mean, the government takes forever. They do things. And it came, you know, the anticipation was about a year later. I would certainly argue and will argue that it was anticipated. But also in those moments, you're still also with a whistleblower. You're always anticipating, like, maybe the whistleblower will sue us.
- [18:43]
B
Sure.
- [18:44]
A
Right. Maybe the subject of the investigation will sue us. So I think anybody in those circumstances would say that that's reasonable. Obviously, there's plenty of lawyers out there who'd argue otherwise.
- [18:54]
B
And then from a hygiene perspective, marking things, work product. Do you need to say anticipation of litigation?
- [19:02]
A
What's important is to say prepared at the direction of counsel or attorney. Work product and prepared at the direction of counsel, particularly if you're not the counsel. Like, that's the main thing to have on there. And these things can cover a lot of areas. I mean, I've litigated cases where we've argued for a crisis management or PR firm that was retained by counsel to help advise, help the lawyers provide legal advice to the client. But even the internal communications between the PR firm without the lawyers on them were work product. We argued and we were nicely done. Somewhere you used to work well done. Well, there you go. Honestly, that could be a crapshoot depending on the judge. But anyway, the point is. So it's important that any kind of external consultants or experts or things that you're working with mark their materials appropriately. Again, it just comes back to like, what if somebody is looking at this five years later is going to think,
- [19:58]
B
what was the reason for it?
- [19:59]
A
Yeah. And you can always put in more evidence. Right. People put in declarations and things like that, but that never holds the weight of what is actually on the four porch contemporaneous document.
- [20:07]
B
All right, you've mentioned investigations a few times and we did talk about this in episode three, but I do want to refresh. I was at a distance following the NRAY first energy case, which is, if people haven't read about it, it is like drama with public corruption and all kinds of twists and turns. But the attorney client privilege and privilege of an internal investigation that was conducted by external counsel was in the crosshairs. The lower court found that. That. And again, this is, I feel like from our prior conversation, in my experience, sort of the best in class approach of privilege is to have an outside law firm engaged and direct the investigation, which was the case in this case. And the lower court found no privilege. It was reversed by the 6th Circuit. But I wonder if you could just give us an overview of like what is the best hygiene? And I don't know if you're familiar with that case, but what I am
- [21:03]
A
familiar with that case and it was insane and we were all like gripping. I think you and I emailed about it when it was happening and the decision hadn't come out yet. And I pointed out like, you know, like a huge number of people filed like briefs in support a lot of amicus. Yeah, yeah, amicus briefs. Just being like this would completely upend how businesses operate and how you want them to operate. Thankfully, the 6th Circuit in like a very, I'd say a beautiful decision. Very, like politely said to the district court, I don't know what you were thinking, but this is crazy. Basically the reasoning of the lower court was because, yes, we understand you're hired outside counsel to do this investigation, but because then the business made some decisions and acted upon the results of that investigation. The whole investigation is really was business motivated, not legal motivated, which makes no sense. Makes no sense. Particularly in this case. You want to talk about proximity? This wasn't like they had to wait a year and a half for a regulatory matter to happen. There were criminal indictments and securities class actions and everything like right there. So it was crazy. So that being said, that case, as crazy as it was, so ultimately the court there was very clear and was like companies if, no question, they hired this for a legal purpose. They had to make decisions about whether or not they had complied with the law, how to fix it. Those are all legal decisions. The fact that you then also make business decisions is kind of irrelevant because you're always going to make business decisions. You're a business. But they were primarily legal and shot that down. Doesn't mean there haven't been some other cases sometimes where there are investigations going on, even by outside Counsel and ultimately courts have found that they don't constitute a privileged investigation. Often that's in the case where it's a highly regulated something that a company basically the cases are you would be doing it anyway you chose to have outside counsel do it, but you would have to do this anyway. It's a requirement. Like you are regulated by the Federal Reserve. You have to do these internal audits. The fact that you chose to have an outside counsel do it or even your in house counsel do it doesn't make it privileged.
- [23:14]
B
Ooh, that's a nuance.
- [23:16]
A
Yeah, that's a little tricky. And to be fair, it wasn't. The entire thing wasn't privileged. So the outside counsel actually giving legal, very specific legal advice would be. But things like the interview notes and the crux of it, those did have to be produced. Wow. So ultimately I think, you know, and this isn't a plug for outside counsel, but the reality is it's not a surefire way. But certainly hiring outside counsel to conduct an investigation is going to increase the chances that it remains privileged. That's just the reality.
- [23:46]
B
Is there any risk of, I'm just going to call it a set it and forget it approach where like you do get the outside counsel to do the engagement letter and everything. But then is there any like if, if the outside counsel isn't actually like really hands on, is there any risk that that privileges look undercut?
- [24:03]
A
Yeah. And I also would question the law firm that would necessarily do that only because typically if you're hiring an outside firm to do it, it's because you want the additional like layer we recently did. I did one for a tech company where they wanted. It comes with an extra layer of veneer, if you will, of having done diligence and seriousness that you lose if you don't actually have them do that work. So you're paying for something that you're not, you wouldn't be getting and you'd be risking. But also it's a similar thing, Stacy, to in house counsel can sometimes don't have all the resources to conduct an internal investigation themselves. They may, you know, basically charge somebody like HR or the compliance department.
- [24:49]
B
Yes.
- [24:49]
A
With doing the internal investigation. But just like that outside counsel, they need to, they can't just be a letter charging them with it and then they go off and do it on their own and then they come back at the very end and give a report to the, the in house counsel. The in house counsel still has to direct it. So you still need to involve the in house Counsel, you need to include them on things regularly, regularly have updates, their materials need to say prepared at the direction of council, things like that. So there are ways you can craft internal investigations even within business and maintain privilege. It's obviously not as safe as hiring outside counsel, but you can do it. But you can't just let them go off and do it and then come back to you at the end. That is not likely to withhold scrutiny if litigated.
- [25:34]
B
And when we did talk a little bit more about that, I just didn't know if their state of play had changed since that in re first energy case.
- [25:41]
A
No, other than people were very scared and held on. They had.
- [25:46]
B
I phoned a friend, I called you and I was like, oh my gosh,
- [25:48]
A
no, that would have been completely groundbreaking. I mean, I think they hopefully would have taken that to the Supreme Court. I think much more where we see internal investigations again becoming waiver happening. Right. Is where you've got engagement with the government or some of that form, and there's, you know, cases on that very clear where you basically, if you share things with the government, even if you try to just do it orally, if you've got some risk of a civil case, you need to assume those civil plaintiffs are going to try and get every single thing you did in that investigation and claim that the fact that you shared information, your findings, your interview highlights with the government leaves the whole investigation. And there are cases that have found that.
- [26:34]
B
Yeah, but that's a rock and a hard place. And the government has some pretty powerful. They put their foot pretty much on the back of your neck to get you to wave, is what I understand. And you kind of have to deal with the problem in front of you, even though there is, you know, more concern on the, you know, at your doorstep.
- [26:54]
A
Yeah, I think you need to make sure you have skilled people in there who can kind of see around all the corners often. Sometimes what you'll have is the civil litigation sometimes comes later and people don't think about it. They have somebody who's like really involved in a niche area with some regulator, but they're not thinking about what's happening later on. I mean, my practice, which I really enjoy, is kind of both the mix of the civil and the white collar. And sometimes they're happening at the same time, sometimes they're not. But because I do both, I'm always thinking about, if we say this here, we push this lever, what's going to happen over there? Ultimately, it's a business decision. You're right. The DOJ is about as big as it gets and if that is the risk and you think you can get a better settlement out of them or non prosecution agreement by sharing information, probably that makes sense, but you're going to pay for it on the other end.
- [27:44]
B
Yeah, a lot of tough choices. Hey, with the time we have left, I do want to talk about AI and the impact of AI tools on the privilege. And I've done probably five or six episodes about AI and I think that there are some rules of the road, some sort of basics about not putting confidential information into kind of public tools. But I know we just before we got on we're talking about a case just a couple days ago that came out. So I don't know if you did this as part of your cla, but what are some good tips for managing privilege with AI?
- [28:16]
A
First tip is I love all these AI tools that can be in your zooms or in your team's meetings and summarize the meeting.
- [28:24]
B
I don't.
- [28:26]
A
Well, I love it in theory but you need to turn those off if you're trying to maintain privilege. I mean especially work product and this hasn't been litigated yet, but I am almost certain if those things basically create a. Some of them create transcripts. A transcript is not going to be work product. You've now lost the ability to be like these are attorney notes that reflect my mental impressions. It's just a transcript. As nice as it would be to say let's not have a junior associate on or whatever and pay that rate for that person to take notes. If you're just going to run AI, I think you should assume there's no work product and whatever has been discussed in that interview or whatever is going to come out. I think that if you are feeding in anything that is privileged into an AI tool until literally yesterday, I think the decision were there wasn't really a clear court case out there and the question was kind of comes down to is serving it up to an AI company considered sharing it with a third party and you waive privilege. And a lot of people were saying you need to look to the terms of service of the AI tool and it's akin to how people using exchanging personal emails on work email accounts similar you look at the employee handbook and things like that. But this case which is decision hasn't come out but from the bench it was it's us Hepner, I think it is and SCNY Judge Rakoff said that there's a criminal defendant who in order to Help organize his recollection of facts. Fed a bunch of information into an AI tool and he said he was doing it. And then he sent it off to his lawyer. So relaying facts to his lawyer to help the lawyer come up with legal strategy that typically would be privileged. But he fed his thoughts and stuff into an AI tool. The AI tool spit out the summary. That's what he sent to the lawyer. And importantly, he did not do it at the direction of counsel. He did it on his own. The court did acknowledge that had he done it the direction of counsel, maybe it would have been a harder call. But the judge also noted that he fed this stuff into an AI tool.
- [30:33]
B
Yeah.
- [30:34]
A
And so there we have it. It's a decision. It's not out yet. Again, it came from the bench a day or two ago, but in sdmy USV Hepner, there was another case.
- [30:45]
B
We didn't preview this, but in the New York Times OpenAI case, and it was reporter's privilege, I think, where I want to do a whole episode about the ediscovery impact of AI, but the judge refused to require New York Times to give over their. I don't know which tool they used, but they used an AI tool for some of their sources. And under the reporter's privilege, the court didn't compel production of their chats, which I thought was interesting. So more to come. I think this is just an emerging area.
- [31:19]
A
And one, there is a case, though, that did order, by the way, like prompts that you put in. There was a case, right. That basically whatever the plaintiffs put in, their lawyers or whatever put in as prompts to like, basically test some of their theory before bringing the case. And the judge said, like, that's not work product. And you put it through an AI tool. You have to produce it.
- [31:38]
B
I mean, people should. Let's underline that. That's a double click moment because I think depends what tool you use. Like if you're using just sort of a public version of ChatGPT or one of the other tools versus, you know, maybe a legal only tool or. I think we're going to see where this goes.
- [31:55]
A
But yes, like, our firm has all kinds of tools, but they're like the version that is just for Gibson Dunn or just has been vetted as. Yeah, exactly. And I don't know exactly how all the ins and outs of that work. I just know it's very strict on what we can use precisely for this reason. Protect people's privilege.
- [32:13]
B
Well, Diana, I always love talking to you. I would like to have you back again as because privilege is evolving and it's something again, I feel like is kind of an in House 101 that people need to be keeping their finger on the pulse. So appreciate you coming back a second time.
- [32:27]
A
Well, thank you so much for having me. I love guess I'm a nerd and love talking about privilege but happy that you will indulge me and hopefully it's helpful to folks and yeah, we're definitely living in a a time where these things are evolving. We can talk in a year from now and there will probably be many more decisions in this AI space that can help guide people.
- [32:46]
B
Yeah, some of us are going to have to learn the hard way. All right, well, you did give me a pump up song last time, but I've been pushing you to be a little more out of the box. So what is your pump up song?
- [32:57]
A
My current pump up song is all the Things she Said, which is prompted by my absolute obsession with the show. Heated rivalry. That's it. That's all I'll say. It's my favorite. It's constantly on loop. Even my kids are into the song now because like it's just on in the car.
- [33:12]
B
I'm sure they're not watching that show though, so just.
- [33:14]
A
They're not watching the show.
- [33:15]
B
I think we need an NC17 warning on that.
- [33:18]
A
Yes. But the song is the good one and that's my pump up song right now. And I will add Taylor Swift. When I was here last time, I was like not a swiftie and my now 8 year old, that was then like you know, got me into Taylor Swift and I am a huge swiftie. Yeah, me too. Kind of. Anything Taylor Swift.
- [33:36]
B
Me too. All right, well, thanks so much. Hey, before you go, if you want more content from the legal department, check out TLD Goal Getter on Substack. It's a mix of free and subscription based content to help you level up your career. That's TLD Goal Getter on Substack. Hope you check it out.
- [34:00]
A
Sam.