One might engage this topic better by asking a series of rhetorical questions.
1. Imagine you drove 40mph in a 25mph zone, a school zone. Children were present. Do you present yourself to the police?
2. You consult an attorney. Should the attorney report your conduct to the police independently?
3. You write a root cause analysis in an effort to verify your perception of exceeding the speed limit and endangering children. Then you lose interest. Are you prohibited from deleting it?
4. You give the analysis to the attorney. Must they permanently preserve it until one of the children you endangered sues you?
Attorney-client privilege is always thin with in-house counsel, and it’s a high-stakes, hard-decisions situation both defending and challenging in all cases. The mention of crime-fraud suggests my hypothetical is a tamer than the actual facts considered by the judge, and this may be the real lesson:
5. How do you distinguish between speeding in a school zone and something that requires a fundamentally different response, even one contrary to your client’s goals?
Ask yourself a question, should we protect a trillion dollar company from perpetuating child abuse by trivializing their harm and compare it to speeding?
btw, school zones are 20mph or less. It's telling in this analogy that you don't seem to have children of your own?
No, your intuition is incorrect. I often think of the random carnage inflicted by automobiles on bystanders as a model for societal inconsistency, which perhaps was the reason it came to mind for the hypothetical. Tire tracks across the sidewalk, marks on the post, just another risk wanly accepted by society.
Anyway, for a more extreme hypothetical, all you have to do is make the speed more egregious. One answer at 40mph; how high until the attorney walks you to the police station? 250mph? Habitual?
It's systematic is the problem. People have been trained by the auto/oil companies over fifty-plus-years to accept the unacceptable, that somehow the automobile is the only way to be "free" and be transported.
I don't think there's any speed in which an attorney turns you in for the crime of reckless operation since we (society) don't see the risk of harm that didn't lead to realized harm. If you injured or killed someone, you get turned in, but obviously that's too late.
I live on a 25mph street, I often see people traveling at double that speed and there are pedestrians nearly all the time. I've complained to the police only to be told that "it's infrequent so we can't catch them" despite this being a daily experience. I wish we lived in a different reality where these risks weren't so acceptable to the society.
Attorney-client privilege is always thin with in-house counsel, and it’s a high-stakes, hard-decisions situation both defending and challenging in all cases. The mention of crime-fraud suggests my hypothetical is a tamer than the actual facts considered by the judge, and this may be the real lesson: 5. How do you distinguish between speeding in a school zone and something that requires a fundamentally different response, even one contrary to your client’s goals?