I really don't think that makes much difference. I'd be much more interested in the judges' political affiliations. The notion that attorney-client communications are privileged, regardless of medium, is not a new concept.

IIRC some judges consider email to be something like a postcard or talking in public.

In a way an unencrypted email is like a postcard. Anyone who gets their hands on it can read it without "opening" anything.

In the same way an unencrypted telephone call is also like a postcard (or posting a tape), but we still have laws protecting that information flow, like the client attorney privilege.

What we are seeing now is just a power grab from governments and organizations to have "novel" forms of communication classed as less protected so they can reap the benefits of being able to intercept it. This is exactly how a legally protected and democratic society breaks down.

There are only two ways to solve it. Either protect all forms of communication without discrimination, or use or invent technology to prevent it being possible in the first place (and not outlaw that technology). There are no other ways.

you're missing the point.

TBH with the knowledge of the recent (and not so recent) NSA stuff, so should phone calls, then - IIRC those are still protected by confidentiality.