The New York Times reported on Saturday that the Australian Signals Directorate, the equivalent of the U.S. National Security Administration, conducted surveillance of communications between Indonesian officials and American law firm Mayer Brown, who was retained by the Indonesians to aid in trade disputes with the United States. The revelation sent ripples through the legal industry over the weekend, as firms grappled with the reality of government eavesdropping and its potential effects on privileged communication. The American Lawyer reports on Mayer Brown’s official statement on the Times article, and The National Law Journal covers the possibility of the U.S. Supreme Court revisiting a 2013 decision concerning electronic surveillance law.

Mayer Brown Balks at Idea it Was Spied on by U.S. Ally it Once Advised
Stopping short of a full-fledged denial, the Am Law 100 firm pushed back early Monday against the suggestion, laid out by The New York Times, that its lawyers’ communications with a foreign client were intercepted by an Australian spy agency with the National Security Agency’s blessing.

Report: American Law Firm’s Communications Spied On
Revelations on Saturday that an American law firm’s communications with a foreign government client were monitored by a National Security Agency ally may provide new impetus for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit a 2013 decision that involved electronic surveillance law.