That is why I said could be sued, there are a lot of factors that go into if a violation like this is actionable. But it could also be that even in general terms without specifics it could be a violation of the attorney-client privilege. If you are working for an attorney and a corporate client is asking the attorney to help set policy that work is still privilege. The idea behind the privilege is to ensure that clients can speak freely to their counsel openly and frankly in order to ensure justice.
As https://www.legaltree.ca/node/792 states:
The purpose of solicitor-client privilege is to facilitate full and frank communication between client and lawyer in the seekingand giving of legal advice, thereby promoting access to justice. The Court has said that the “privilege is based on the functional needs of the administration of justice. The legal system, complicated as it is, calls for professional expertise. Access to justice is compromised where legal advice is unavailable.”[2] “Clients must feel free and protected to be frank and candid with their lawyers with respect to their affairs so that the legal system […] may properly function”.[3] The privilege “stretches beyond the parties and is integral to the workings of the legal system itself. The solicitor-client relationship is a part of that system, not ancillary to it”.[4]
I am not saying in one way or another that he should be sued or suffer other penalties. It does though explain why he may not want to identify himself for the fear of suffering civil penalties over this.
But I also state what I stated because some people here have made the thought that if a member of the US legal department fades and starts to spill the beans that this would be a huge help to lawyers like Zalkin. My point is that if a member of the US Legal Department did do that, it may provide some help but the information provided would be privileged and would most likely never be able to be used in civil litigations.
Look at even in the Lopez case Mr Zalkin has all files of child abuse prior to 2001 but those documents are under seal and it would be a violation of the law for him to use it in any other case because those documents have a measure of privilege.
