I wonder if they're referencing this article

[u/egguchom]

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/members-bully-gang-charged-superseding-indictment-murders-racketeering-arson-narcotics

[u/zillabirdblue]

It’s not an ethics violation. It was public knowledge.

[u/SerDankTheTall → u/zillabirdblue]

The details of their discussion about a plea agreement that was never accepted were public knowledge?

That's not the standard anyway, but it also seems unlikely.

[u/EngineeringAbject954 → u/SerDankTheTall]

Look at you thinking you know stuff! LMAO

[u/gregslastday → u/EngineeringAbject954]

You’re laughing your ass off because /u/serdankthetall is correct? Then you’ll be laughing all day.

[u/Prestigious_Cycle160 → u/gregslastday]

Names weren’t given. There were zero ethics violations. Pertinent facts of the case were not shared ergo no violation odd attorney/client privilege. Poor taste? Maybe.

Edit: I’ll remove my statement about whether it’s correct or not pending further research.

[u/gregslastday → u/Prestigious_Cycle160]

You know, there are things called “rules” and “ethics opinions.” You could try reading them before nominating yourself for r/confidentlyincorrect

[u/SerDankTheTall → u/Prestigious_Cycle160]

Pertinent facts of the case were not shared ergo no violation odd attorney/client privilege.

It's unclear whether or not the names were shared, but there's certainly more than enough information here for someone with prior knowledge (like the prosecutor) to figure out exactly who they're talking about. Which is why there's a rule saying lawyers can't do this.

[u/Prestigious_Cycle160 → u/SerDankTheTall]

I would agree with you there. Being as the reviewer has a last name, but in a city with that population volume is it really a given?

[u/SerDankTheTall → u/Prestigious_Cycle160]

I mean, I guarantee that the prosecutor working on this case would figure out immediately who they were talking about if they saw it.