From: "Martin G. Weinberg" < To: "Jeffrey E." <jeevacation(agmail.com>, <I Subject: Re: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 02:13:29 +0000 Importance: Normal Think of the best pretrial motion that this relates to; too many risks going anywhere else with it. Once filed, its available in other cases. From: jeffrey E. Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 8:14 PM To: Martin G. Weinberg Subject: Re: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE i dont want to go to trial. . i think that if the judge saw this hed go crazy On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Martin G. Weinberg < > wrote: I don't know all the ins/outs, strategy re current case but my defaults would be to rely on a pleading not an indirect press release and to prioritize using in the case before you in the most effective way you can Around in AM if you want to discuss. From: Jeffrey E. Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 5:50 PM To: Martin G. Weinberg Subject: Re: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE maybe alan releases to the press.? dont want to wait until trial. . another summary judgement motion. ? at the same time release to the press. in FULL. On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Martin G. Weinberg < II> wrote: Not sure how the prior law firm would have received these emails but they surely have a chain of custody, a disc from which they were printed, others before/after. You don't want to be able to say they were inadvertently disclosed and must be returned i.e. inadmissible which is a lawyer's first move when his emails/work product were disseminated. Seems different than the Rothstein emails which may have come from a separate discovery roduction. Not to in anyway discourage a pretrial proactive approach, but together they are most devastating if not dreaming you have them) first denies the content and then is confronted with his own writings — last nig o ay's . From: jeffrey E. Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 4:20 PM To: Martin Weinberg ; Jack Goldberger ; Darren Indyke ; Scott J. Link Subject: F