Trevin, to that end, can you talk about the mechanics, the process, the paperwork that goes into that front end retention of a third party attorney investigator and some of the pros and cons and issues that we're considering when that process is being undertaken?

Yes, certainly.

So and like Kara said, we're focused for this podcast on maintaining the attorney-client privilege as to an investigation, which means usually somewhere in that chain, an attorney has to be involved, whether that's your in-house counsel who does the investigation themselves, retains a third party, like Kara said, and sometimes That counsel will retain a third party who themselves are attorneys, but sometimes your in-house counsel or even your contracted outside counsel will retain a third party investigator who is not an attorney.

But if it is an attorney retaining that non-attorney, these attorney-client privilege issues can still be presented.

And typically, if outside counsel is retaining a third party investigator on behalf of the client, we'll have a legal services agreement or engagement letter.

And that letter will say that Lozada Smith, for example, retaining that third party investigator, that we are retaining that investigator on behalf of our agency client.

to conduct an investigation and typically will say to ensure some sort of attorney-client privilege there that that third party attorney investigator is engaging in legal services.

Trevin, with that in mind, can you talk about some of the issues that arise both in the lane of the pros and cons of intentional partial disclosures or partial waivers of the privilege, along with the separate concept of entirely inadvertent disclosures, which risk waiver of the privilege?