Lawyers (Hillary) at prestigious law firms (Rose) know about Record retention and disclosure require

[Rilgin]

Last edited Sat May 14, 2016, 07:10 PM - Edit history (1)

What has not been pointed out is that before becoming first lady she was a lawyer at a major law firm (The Rose Law Firm). Lawyers have specific record retention requirements and deal with disclosure issues all the time. I have not seen anyone point out her training in retention and disclosure issues.

Retention and Disclosure are key responsibilities of lawyers. Hillary was trained to work with these two issues front and center. It affects every document a lawyer writes. It goes into a client file and if its confidential its marked because of disclosure issues. It is impossible for a lawyer (especially a litigator) to ignore the requirement to look at communication from the framework of retention, filing, storage, and disclosure.

She was a litigator and one of the main actions of a litigator is disclosure, seeking records and providing records.

This goes to her intention. Her actions were not inadvertent and without knowledge of retention or disclosure issues. The fact that she set up a private server with no institutional retention and disclosure purely in her own control had to be intentional because her whole training involved looking at information and communications in the framework of storage and disclosure requirements.

[djean111]

1. To be fair, Hillary did fail the Washington DC bar exam, so she went to Arkansas and passed that

bar exam, which was, evidently, less rigorous. So maybe these issues were not covered.

[amborin]

8. LOL!

[CorporatistNation]

18. THERE IS... NO DAMN EXCUSE! Whatever She Did WAS Almost Certainly... INTENTIONAL!

Let's get her hand on the bible and get her testimony!

[djean111]

20. Oh, I was not making excuses for her, not at all.

She will lie with impunity, though, the fix is in.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Rilgin.

[Rilgin]

3. Thank You

I had not seen anyone point out in the email context that she was a lawyer and had dealt with institutional record keeping requirements before.

[surrealAmerican]

4. It was a long enough time ago ...

... that, even though the rules about record keeping might be the same, the methods of preserving records would be entirely different.

Could she have been operating under the false assumption that the old rules could not apply, given how much the methods had changed? Not that that's any excuse, but it's an attitude I've run into before with people of a certain age - they think they know how things should work, and it's hard to convince them otherwise - sort of an "embarrassing baby-boomer fail" situation.

[Rilgin]

5. That is actually my point

She is not your grandmother. She is a highly trained corporate litigator. Law firms are about procedures for everything from billing to record keeping.

Record keeping is not the same training as a small business person where tax reporting is imposed on them. Litigators seek and disclose information with every case. Records, retention, disclosure, security, confidentiality is an ingrained and essential part of litigation and litigators.

Government and law firms have different actual record keeping requirements. Her first day at Rose (just like my first day as an associate) she would be informed of record keeping requirements that apply to all from senior partners to junior associates. From that point on every communication and written document would be in the context of the institutional procedure. This is an ingrained way of thinking which comes from being a lawyer.

When she came into the State Department, the IT department told her the procedures. We know that and she signed a document acknowledging she understood. However, what I am saying is that being a lawyer she already knew that the institution had to have procedures to comply with record retention and disclosure requirements. It is not conceivable that she was not aware that institutions have record keeping requirements and procedures to comply and like law firms they rely on file clerks and IT professions to set those procedures. Her decision to go around the procedures set up was knowing that it was contrary to procedures set up for compliance because of her training as a lawyer coming up through the law firms.

A senior partner might ask (emphasis added for ask) if things can be done differently but would follow the decision of the IT department. They would not deliberately violate the institutional procedures as Hillary did unless it was totally intentional. This inate understanding of the record keeping requirements of her job would not fade over time.

[surrealAmerican]

6. Thank you for clarifying this.

Could she have been expecting some sort of secretary or aide to be taking care of records for her?
She may have thought herself too important to be bothered with such "details".

[Rilgin]

7. The aides in this case are the it department

Your point is fair and is exactly how it works. She comes to the State Department and they tell her the information and communication protocols and procedures to be used. She then asks cant I use my blackberry. Asking is clearly appropriate. When they say no, its over because she has more important things to do then set up different information and communication procedures. And if she did, as a lawyer, she would connect the procedures to the reason for the procedures -- to satisfy record keeping and disclousure requirements. She did not do that so ultimately it does not make sense.

[woolldog]

14. You have no idea how it works in the state department.

And what IT told her, if anything, and when. Stop pretending that you do. You're pulling all of this out of your ass. Pure speculation by you.

[Rilgin]

15. Not pure speculation

I have not worked at State but I am a lawyer which is the point of this post. I do not know the IT processes of State nor am I an expert at archiving. However, I know it exists.

I am a lawyer and I have read FOIA and have put a request forward for a client. More importantly, I know it exists.

If I contract with a contractor for work, I know there exist building codes. I do not guess at them. If I want something that is against code, the contractor will tell me and I do not then insist anyhow. We know without speculation from her emails that she requested the use of a Blackberry and was told no and given a reason. This again is not FOIA which is my major problem but again shows she was aware that there were procedures and did not follow them.

If I am a Hillary Clinton who is a lawyer and has been a senator and I profess not to be a technical expert I know there are record keeping laws and I know who knows them ... IT professionals. And in fact we know (without speculation) that she used one of the State Department's IT people to set up her outside system.

We do know she signed an NDA which I read which states she understood there were handling requirements for classified information (which frankly is not my real problem with her handling) and she had to know that her emails were subject to FOIA. Yes this is some speculation that she knew about FOIA but if she did not and did not find out that her system would not allow compliance she is totally not competent to be in charge of government.

That is the exact point. Lawyers deal with laws. They know they exist even if they are not experts in the details which is why when we go into an institution we follow the procedures laid out for us or if we make our own system we make sure they comply with laws which we are aware of like FOIA. It is not speculation that her system made it impossible for State to comply with FOIA.

It is not speculation that there is a government agency called the National Archive and Record Keeping Administration for the storage of government records. It would be speculation for me to say exactly how they do what they do. It is not speculation for me to say they exist and their purpose and that if I set up a system I should be using people who know the requirements and procedures of this Agency.

[woolldog]

19. You're making a lot of assumptions as

to what she was told at the State Dept and what she should have inferred from what she may or may not have been told.

[Rilgin]

21. I am definitely making one assumption

I am making the assumption that she was not told that she could set up a separate email account and make sure her emails were not available for FOIA requests. I am also making an assumption that a lawyer of her caliber and training would think of the issue.

I am saying that it is not the case that the issues involving record keeping and disclosure did not occur to her. This is an assumption and my whole point of this thread. Unless she is totally incompetent (and I think a Yale Law graduate is pretty smart) she would be aware of record keeping and disclosure especially since it had dogged her husband.

She set up something outside the State Department. This is fact not assumption. My point is a lawyer would address or violate record keeping and disclosure requirements with compliance or with willful non-compliance. Most people would be aware of these requirements and the above sentence would be true of most lay people. However, it would be especially true of lawyers. In setting up the outside system, her legal training makes it less likely that it was not an intentional decision not to comply with record keeping and disclosure requirements. And again my focus is on the FOIA.

[JudyM]

9. She was also a senator and they have govt record keeping requirements as well.

[thesquanderer]

10. Rules have changed as well...

Last edited Sun May 15, 2016, 10:14 AM - Edit history (1)

...i.e. more rules about this were put in place under the Obama administration that had been in existence before.

While the concept broadly carries forward, the details and technologies have certainly changed, and are also different for a public entity like the government (esp. with FOIA) than for private entities.

[Rilgin]

13. Yes, she might not have been an expert in maintaining emails to comply with FOIA requests

Hint, there are people whose job it is to set up email systems that are secure and archive. She knew there were requirements even if she did not know the specifics. I can believe that. When I went to work for a big law firm after law school, I didnt know the specifics but I knew that I was to follow a system and it was peoples jobs to make sure that those systems met record keeping requirements.

Hillary came to office and was instructed in the State Department procedures and protocols and chose to ignore them to set up a process that did not result in her emails being available (in other word she hit) for FOIA requests.

I take it that you are a democrat and care about things like the FOIA.

[JaneyVee]

11. Except the law wasnt put in place until 2014, 2 years after she stepped down.

[Rilgin]

12. Reading Comprehension please

The FOIA was not enacted in 2014. Government record retention is not new and Hillary knew there were those requirements certainly when she became SOS. She might not have known the precise details but she certainly knew there were some because she was a lawyer first and a senator. People who know these things and are not technological rely on the professionals to provide the system they do not create their own. Witness that she created a system that did not comply with her obligation to deliver her emails when she left office.

You just read posts and make up some defense no matter that it does not address the point. Hillary was informed of the processes and protocols in the state department and ignored them to set up a system that hid her emails from FOIA requests of the State Department.

You are a pretty bad democrat if you dont believe the FOIA is important.

[ucrdem]

16. Rose law firm, no kidding!

My youth has returned, it's a miracle.

[Rilgin]

17. Sarcasm for mentioning she worked at a Prestigious Law Firm?

One of her assets is she is intelligent. She went to Yale Law School and worked for a prestigious law firm. These are amongst her positives.

It is not a hit on her not is saying that as a young lawyer record keeping and disclosure were part of her training as a litigator and stating where she received such training.

Now rather than sarcasm address the point of knowledge that there are record keeping and disclosure laws that apply to government agencies and employees. My point is not a hit on lawyers or her history only that her knowledge was amplified by her training as a lawyer since lawyers deal with those issues.