You could be right. I'm still kind of surprised though if the attorneys did that no matter how puzzled they may have been.
Like with other professions involving privileged communication (e.g., physician, psychologist, priest), so far as I know the standard in effect for attorneys is that they must have explicit permission from the client before talking to family members about the client's situation, particularly when the client is not a minor, an adult deemed incompetent by a court or by unconsciousness or other overwhelming medical issue and the family member is next-of-kin, and/or it's not a medical emergency. That can make it more difficult to serve a person professionally but without assurances of confidentiality there would be bigger problems in the long run.
The standard is not that attorneys can talk to anyone they wish until or unless the person explicitly says "hey, don't talk to X, Y, or Z." The client holds the privilege automatically. It's not something she has to "invoke" for it to be in effect.
I know communication can become "unprivileged" if it occurs in the presence of certain third parties. And maybe LS's letter to the judge did that since it had to be made public by the court. But it still seems odd to me.
JMO
