Mayer Brown, the Chicago-based law firm cited in a weekend report about National Security Administration spying, has issued a statement that stops short of an outright denial that its communications were under surveillance but says there is “no indication” that any spying occurred “at the firm.”

Citing a February 2013 document obtained by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the New York Times on Sunday reported that the NSA was notified that the Australian Signals Directorate, its Australian government counterpart, was conducting surveillance of trade talks, including communications between Indonesian officials and an American law firm that the Indonesians had retained for help in the trade talks.

According to the document, the NSA was alerted by the Australian agency that “information covered by attorney-client privilege may be included” in the surveillance, but that after consulting with the NSA counsel’s office, the Australians were “able to continue to cover the talks, providing highly useful intelligence for interested U.S. customers.”

The document did not identify the law firm, but Mayer Brown was advising the Indonesian government at the time, according to the New York Times. Records filed with the U.S. Senate indicate that the firm lobbied in 2012 on behalf of the Specialty Tobacco Council in Winston-Salem, N.C., and the Indonesian clove cigarette maker P.T. Djarum.

Responding to the report, Mayer Brown said in a statement late Sunday night: “There is no indication, either in the media reports or from our internal systems and controls, that the alleged surveillance occurred at the firm.”

Asked by the Tribune whether the firm was saying that there was no evidence of spying at the firm, or that there was no evidence of spying of the firm, a Mayer Brown spokesman responded: “At the firm.”

The Mayer Brown statement also said, “Nor has there been any suggestion that Mayer Brown was in any way the subject of the alleged scrutiny. Mayer Brown takes data protection and privacy very seriously, and we invest significant resources to keep client information secure.”

The issue of who was the subject – or target – of the surveillance may be important because the NSA is not allowed to target Americans for warrantless surveillance, but it can intercept communications between Americans and foreign intelligence targets abroad, including attorney-client conversations.

The NSA would not comment specifically on the case, but said that the intelligence agency has procedures in place to protect the privacy of Americans.

“Because some communications of U.S. persons may at times be incidentally collected in NSA’s lawful foreign intelligence mission, the agency’s authorities include procedures that protect the privacy of U.S. persons,” NSA spokesperson Vanee’ Vines said in a statement.

Steps to “protect potentially privileged information,” could include “requesting that collection or reporting by a foreign partner be limited; that intelligence reports be written so as to limit the inclusion of privileged material and to exclude U.S. identities; and that dissemination of such reports be limited and subject to appropriate warnings or restrictions on their use,” Vines said.

kgeiger@tribune.com

@kimgeiger



