Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[Jeff Lebowski]

This article is old, which is why I said earlier that the fact this information was leaked to Greg Bishop is not really in dispute. But I'm glad you guys are finally taking an interest in it, because I think it's easily the most (potentially) problematic part of the response, and I wanted to hear the Mormon attorney side of the story.



Ok, but when this info was leaked, there was no civil litigation pending (per the Church's own statement), and thus no obligation to share with anyone. These guys (attorneys) had no problem with the Church collecting the information, and even said that Greg Bishop had every right (even duty) to publicize it to strengthen his case. They said that had there been litigation pending, the plaintiff could have requested an order that the information be suppressed, I think at least from revelation to the public? This is all from my recollection of their points. Again, I really wish you had taken an interest in this earlier so I could have relayed things more directly, but that's my recall.



Lol. I assure you that if I shared this info, "But I accidentally clicked Reply All!" would neither save my job, my personal HIPAA fine, or potentially, my license. I'm gathering that you guys are much looser/lazier with these issues, but isn't that a problem at least for the client (the Church)? The Church gets a black eye because its hired counsel can't control his clicking finger? Is there a kind of fiduciary responsibility to a client's interest to maybe click the right button? Or is this just an accepted lower standard? At the very least, he should be fired. I'm curious if he was.

Even if your narrative is true (I am anxious to see how the attorneys respond), at this point you are basically arguing that he was negligent/careless, which is a far cry from what you seemed to be insinuating earlier.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Lebowski is the one who is implying it was an accidental inclusion in the email chain. I'm not at all convinced it was accidental (although I'm not convinced the Church was behind it)--even my kids know how to tell where an email is going.

As for the Church's involvement: I'm just trusting the Church's spokesman when he said that they were not in discussions with the plaintiff prior to the suit being filed. Maybe he was lying about that?

I am relating the content of the KUTV article.

[ERCougar]

Even if your narrative is true (I am anxious to see how the attorneys respond), at this point you are basically arguing that he was negligent/careless, which is a far cry from what you seemed to be insinuating earlier.

No, I don't think he was negligent/careless, because I don't think attorneys are that stupid. That he was negligent or careless is your narrative. I'll go ahead and accept it for the sake of argument, because I'm curious: 1) how commonly that happens, 2) if the Church has any recourse, 3) why the Church hasn't pointed out that they didn't intend for that to be shared.

[creekster]

I don't recall saying that church was only interested in its financial welfare, I said it was their first priority. I stand by that statement. You are also right that I would do the exact same thing for my client.

As with many things with the LDS church, it isn't even their behavior that makes them look bad, it is the duplicity about the actual motive.

SHow me where the church said anything duplicitous in the context of this discussion.

[myboynoah]

No, I don't think he was negligent/careless, because I don't think attorneys are that stupid. That he was negligent or careless is your narrative. I'll go ahead and accept it for the sake of argument, because I'm curious: 1) how commonly that happens, 2) if the Church has any recourse, 3) why the Church hasn't pointed out that they didn't intend for that to be shared.

1) what? missent emails?
2) don't know
3) because The Church is evil, very evil

[Donuthole]

Ok, but when this info was leaked, there was no civil litigation pending (per the Church's own statement), and thus no obligation to share with anyone. These guys (attorneys) had no problem with the Church collecting the information, and even said that Greg Bishop had every right (even duty) to publicize it to strengthen his case. They said that had there been litigation pending, the plaintiff could have requested an order that the information be suppressed, I think at least from revelation to the public? This is all from my recollection of their points. Again, I really wish you had taken an interest in this earlier so I could have relayed things more directly, but that's my recall.

What do you mean by pending? They were in settlement negotiations. Those go something like this: "Pay us money or we're filing a lawsuit". At that point litigation is certainly pending. But even well before that, if the church has good reason to believe that litigation is forthcoming (a letter from an attorney saying they represent her would do the trick) then litigation is pending.

Lol. I assure you that if I shared this info, "But I accidentally clicked Reply All!" would neither save my job, my personal HIPAA fine, or potentially, my license. I'm gathering that you guys are much looser/lazier with these issues, but isn't that a problem at least for the client (the Church)? The Church gets a black eye because its hired counsel can't control his clicking finger? Is there a kind of fiduciary responsibility to a client's interest to maybe click the right button? Or is this just an accepted lower standard? At the very least, he should be fired. I'm curious if he was.

It's an inaccurate analogy, ER, so you should stop using it; it's tainting your perspective on the issue. The very information that was shared is going to be evidence in the lawsuit. Sharing that information with the parties who are certainly also going to be involved int he lawsuit is not akin to sharing--accidentally, randomly, or intentionally--a patient's private medical information. So you can stop using this as evidence that the medical privacy standard is more strictly enforced than the legal one. Because there is no privacy breach here. This is not privileged information that is being shared with the public. It was information being shared in the context of potential litigation, and any privilege the plaintiff could have otherwise claimed has likely been waived by her allegations.

I'll give you an analogy that maybe you can understand. You get notified that a schizophrenic patient has filed a claim against you because he says he had a hemolytic reaction when you gave him the wrong type of blood while he was in the ER. He is suing both you and the hospital. The hospital says to his laywer and to your lawyer. "we think this is all on the doctor. OUr nurses did nothing wrong. But in case you were wondering, here is some research we dug up on this guy where he was going to other hospitals and trying to get them to give him the wrong blood type. Also, he later admitted in those cases that he was not fully truthful." And then your lawyer shares this information with the public. What did the hospital do wrong there?

[Jeff Lebowski]

No, I don't think he was negligent/careless, because I don't think attorneys are that stupid. That he was negligent or careless is your narrative. I'll go ahead and accept it for the sake of argument, because I'm curious: 1) how commonly that happens, 2) if the Church has any recourse, 3) why the Church hasn't pointed out that they didn't intend for that to be shared.

OK, fine. Maybe I misread what happened. This is what the attorney said:

Jordan acknowledged that he wrote the letter and only sent it to Bishop because he had been included in an email chain by the accuser’s attorney. Jordan says he did not release the letter to the media.

This is what the church spokesman said:

As we've said in both statements, our work to address this matter has included the work of outside legal counsel to interview and investigate the facts and allegations. This requires access to membership information. During this process, it is customary and acceptable for outside counsel to correspond with the attorneys representing other parties, including sharing information that may support or refute their claims.

So maybe it falls more in line with what DH and creekster are saying: standard protocol for civil cases.

Does the timing matter when it was clear that a suit was being filed?

[creekster]

What do you mean by pending? They were in settlement negotiations. Those go something like this: "Pay us money or we're filing a lawsuit". At that point litigation is certainly pending. But even well before that, if the church has good reason to believe that litigation is forthcoming (a letter from an attorney saying they represent her would do the trick) then litigation is pending.




It's an inaccurate analogy, ER, so you should stop using it; it's tainting your perspective on the issue. The very information that was shared is going to be evidence in the lawsuit. Sharing that information with the parties who are certainly also going to be involved int he lawsuit is not akin to sharing--accidentally, randomly, or intentionally--a patient's private medical information. So you can stop using this as evidence that the medical privacy standard is more strictly enforced than the legal one. Because there is no privacy breach here. This is not privileged information that is being shared with the public. It was information being shared in the context of potential litigation, and any privilege the plaintiff could have otherwise claimed has likely been waived by her allegations.

I'll give you an analogy that maybe you can understand. You get notified that a schizophrenic patient has filed a claim against you because he says he had a hemolytic reaction when you gave him the wrong type of blood while he was in the ER. He is suing both you and the hospital. The hospital says to his laywer and to your lawyer. "we think this is all on the doctor. OUr nurses did nothing wrong. But in case you were wondering, here is some research we dug up on this guy where he was going to other hospitals and trying to get them to give him the wrong blood type. Also, he later admitted in those cases that he was not fully truthful." And then your lawyer shares this information with the public. What did the hospital do wrong there?

DH has it down.

Look, this is not unusual AT ALL. I actually chuckled when ER said he was glad that this old article was FINALLY getting our attention. In truth, I read it when it came out and it made no impact on my thinking because it is exactly what happens all the time. Funk suggests that this episode shows duplicity on the part of the church, but i think it is the opposite; anyone experienced at all with litigation knows this is run of the mill conduct that every attorney would engage in on behalf of the client.

To be honest the only thing that might raise a question was whether the defense revealed too much too soon as a strategic choice. This sort of stuff is often held onto until depositions or trial. In this case, however, the media attention changes the dynamics a bit.

[creekster]

Does the timing matter when it was clear that a suit was being filed?

No. Assuming no illegal or unethical steps were taken, the timing does not matter. I have a client that finds itself a target for very large claims from time to time. Whenever it sees even the potential for such a claim in my area I am told to immediately start gathering information about the facts and the claimant. Sometimes no suit is forthcoming. But either way, we begin preparing as soon as the possibility is on the horizon.

[ByronMarchant]

But in case you were wondering, here is some research we dug up on this guy where he was going to other hospitals and trying to get them to give him the wrong blood type.

LOL

[Donuthole]

LOL

It's a sad day, very sad, when our medical professionals are reduced to laughing at their suicidal schizophrenic patients.

[ERCougar]

What do you mean by pending? They were in settlement negotiations. Those go something like this: "Pay us money or we're filing a lawsuit". At that point litigation is certainly pending. But even well before that, if the church has good reason to believe that litigation is forthcoming (a letter from an attorney saying they represent her would do the trick) then litigation is pending.




It's an inaccurate analogy, ER, so you should stop using it; it's tainting your perspective on the issue. The very information that was shared is going to be evidence in the lawsuit. Sharing that information with the parties who are certainly also going to be involved int he lawsuit is not akin to sharing--accidentally, randomly, or intentionally--a patient's private medical information. So you can stop using this as evidence that the medical privacy standard is more strictly enforced than the legal one. Because there is no privacy breach here. This is not privileged information that is being shared with the public. It was information being shared in the context of potential litigation, and any privilege the plaintiff could have otherwise claimed has likely been waived by her allegations.

I'll give you an analogy that maybe you can understand. You get notified that a schizophrenic patient has filed a claim against you because he says he had a hemolytic reaction when you gave him the wrong type of blood while he was in the ER. He is suing both you and the hospital. The hospital says to his laywer and to your lawyer. "we think this is all on the doctor. OUr nurses did nothing wrong. But in case you were wondering, here is some research we dug up on this guy where he was going to other hospitals and trying to get them to give him the wrong blood type. Also, he later admitted in those cases that he was not fully truthful." And then your lawyer shares this information with the public. What did the hospital do wrong there?

No one's disputing the church's right to collect this information, or even their right to share it with her attorneys. I brought up a point about discovery, but really, it's a non sequitur. What I and most normal people have a problem with is the ethics/morality of sharing that information with the son of the perpetrator, who is not associatef with the (possible) civil litigation against the church. I guess that might strengthen their case, but only if Bishops son leaks it to the media. Do you really think that's morally ok?

I don't, and I don't think the church does either, but i guess the attorneys so far commenting are all cool with the leaking of information to parties that are most certainly going to pass it on, as long as it helps the case!

Let's pretend for a minute that the church has some sort of, you know... moral sense, and doesn't want this woman's info shared. You're getting hung up on the wrong part of the analogy. I'd get fired by the hospital because I've put them at risk, both in terms of reputation and liability. Which is what Jordan has done here. The church has a black eye because he was either remarkably stupid, or intentionally amoral.

[Donuthole]

No one's disputing the church's right to collect this information, or even their right to share it with her attorneys. I brought up a point about discovery, but really, it's a non sequitur. What I and most normal people have a problem with is the ethics/morality of sharing that information with the son of the perpetrator, who is not associatef with the (possible) civil litigation against the church. I guess that might strengthen their case, but only if Bishops son leaks it to the media. Do you really think that's morally ok?

I don't, and I don't think the church does either, but i guess the attorneys so far commenting are all cool with the leaking of information to parties that are most certainly going to pass it on, as long as it helps the case!

Let's pretend for a minute that the church has some sort of, you know... moral sense, and doesn't want this woman's info shared. You're getting hung up on the wrong part of the analogy. I'd get fired by the hospital because I've put them at risk, both in terms of reputation and liability. Which is what Jordan has done here. The church has a black eye because he was either remarkably stupid, or intentionally amoral.

Clearly you're not really wanting to actually discuss this, so I'll stop taking the bait.

[Moliere]

Isn’t Bishops son Bishops attorney? Seems like he’s connected to the case in that it’s his client that is being sued.

[Jeff Lebowski]

No one's disputing the church's right to collect this information, or even their right to share it with her attorneys. I brought up a point about discovery, but really, it's a non sequitur. What I and most normal people have a problem with is the ethics/morality of sharing that information with the son of the perpetrator, who is not associatef with the (possible) civil litigation against the church. I guess that might strengthen their case, but only if Bishops son leaks it to the media. Do you really think that's morally ok?

I don't, and I don't think the church does either, but i guess the attorneys so far commenting are all cool with the leaking of information to parties that are most certainly going to pass it on, as long as it helps the case!

Let's pretend for a minute that the church has some sort of, you know... moral sense, and doesn't want this woman's info shared. You're getting hung up on the wrong part of the analogy. I'd get fired by the hospital because I've put them at risk, both in terms of reputation and liability. Which is what Jordan has done here. The church has a black eye because he was either remarkably stupid, or intentionally amoral.

Oh boy. There it is.