Per 
SCP LAWYER
The Foundation is a private institution outside of government control. It is worldwide.
Lawyers are scouted for by scouts watching ivy league lawyers in trial, who already operate in government or otherwise have clearances. They are approached with an offer, and amnesiaced if rejected.
As a lawyer, he has the “clearance” of attorney/client privilege. Thus, he can (and must) hear and see information above the highest classification levels. Of course, this is all information only relevant to his case. ‘not like he can walk anywhere on site at will. Foundation Lawyers are have Level 2 Clearances, and are Class B personnel.
Foundation lawyers represent the Foundation in civil and criminal suits that target SCP activity. The Foundation always operates through front organizations (often with the acronyms SCP). So, if an SCP driver ruins someone’s lawn in pursuit of an SCP and gets sued. His company, Storage Company Partnership is sued.
These front organizations operate in the real world through real laws. Thus, SCP buildings are built to code and do not violate municipal laws.
The front companies are sued according to their real-world jurisdiction. So, they might be in state or federal court.
Discovery and the fronts are operated in such a way that their connection to SCP is and should never be discovered no matter how extensive discovery is.
Sometimes The Foundation is sued by its own members. These instances are handled in in-house hearings with SCP mediators. If failed, there are tribunal actions that happen in-house.
When outsiders sue, they are taken to Federal Court, and the court case is handled in secret, closed-doors. The court cases are not logged to be indexed by Lexis or Westlaw. The court building has no trial announcement.
The judge and jury are amnesiaced after trial. If SCP can do so for years at a time and replace memory. I don’t know.
SCP is above government? But are they above the law?
D-Class people legally waive any and all rights they have. They are like Soldiers in that regard, but less so. They are legally property.
The tale will be composed of cases arising from the anomalous events page, or Unexplained Locations. There may be a few using SCPs.
Unexplained Location UE-826208 (edit)
Location Description: A kitchen of average make and size, attached to an Italian fine dining restaurant. Any dishes listed as 'vegetarian' on the menu will spontaneously partially transform into meat, even in cases where the corresponding non vegetarian dish would not have contained meat.
Date of Containment: 2017-05-01
Location: Jamestown, NY, USA
Security Protocol: The restaurant was purchased and is currently used as a Foundation front and fundraiser. The word 'vegetarian' on the menu has been replaced with all capital letters, with the exception of a lower case letter 'L' to simulate a capital I.
UE-826208 is ran as a restaurant, Sally’s Cuisine Palace, with a vegan menu.
You start the tale with a description of SCP’s lawyers.
Introduce UE-826208.
Many of the cooks and servers are unaware of UE’s traits.
At all times there is an undercover MTF soldier. He is to observe the place for dangerous stuff. Normally, he is bored and just eats there.
The management is aware. And a few veteran cooks and servers.
There is an original menu that is kept to research the phenomena. As such there is also a researcher or two on site.
The story begins with a customer dying from her lasagna being non-vegetarian. Severe egg allergy.
Her family sues.
Lawyer shows up. He needs to know exactly how this happened. It was a menu switch. The researcher accidently switched the menus during a non-routine research (normally, the menu is clearly identified).
Arbitration clause. Mediator wants to settle with a huge sum. Family refuses to settle. They see justice only being served in court.
The dilemma is whether to reveal the anomalous properties or not. To reveal would be to lie on the stand. Much philosophical discussion about what and why The Foundation does what it does. [It’s a glitch. Not a ghost, or monster, or technology. Should glitches be hid? Likely, yes.]
Part of the discussion that allows for this to go to trial, is that “It is only a UE, not an SCP.” A UE is largely unmonitored and contained and considered safe. It’s classified, but not considered dangerous.
It is impossible for The Foundation to win the case. Either it’s negligence through the menu switch, or negligence in switching menu food. [Maybe make it clearly anonmolous with a vegan food having meat. Like lettuce with beef or something.]
No protracted court room drama. This tale is about what SCP lawyers do. He loses the case.
http://www.scp-wiki.net/log-of-unexplained-locations/p/3#5
“Strawberry and Cantaloupe Plantations” A field where the person standing there smells like strawberries.
Unexplained Location UE-193584 (edit)
Location Description: An underground mine (about 2 kilometers deep) where it is constantly raining. The mine does not flood.
Date of Containment: ████-██-██
Location: Arizona, through the edge of Utah.
Security Protocol: All entrances blocked off, signs that state "Dangerous! Mines still active!"
(Maybe a tort occurs on this property.)
Unexplained Location UE-691984 (edit)
Location Description: A hospital. Security cameras will occasionally display humanoid entities possessing fatal injuries. Entities will stare at the camera, only moving to avoid interaction with others present in the room. These entities are not visible in the room and can only be seen through the cameras. After approximately five hours, entities will demanifest.
Date of Containment: ████-██-██
Location: Farmington, NM, USA
Security Protocol: Staffed by Foundation personnel, appearance of all manifestations is logged in Document UL-██-A.
(Malpractice)
How courts operate with Top Secret sites and data.
The site is never named. Rather, it's "a facility near _," or "operating location near _." Discovery can be denied citing state secrets and national security privileges. Kasza v. Browner 133 F.3d 1159 (citing United States v. Reynolds, 345 US 1).
Section 6001(a), however, grants the President the power to exempt an executive branch facility from compliance with "such a requirement" of RCRA "if he determines it to be in the paramount interest of the United States to do so." 42 U.S.C. § 6961(a).
As recognized by the district court, the state secrets privilege and § 6001 have different purposes: one is an evidentiary privilege that allows the government to withhold sensitive information within the context of litigation; the other allows the President to exempt a federal facility from compliance with RCRA's regulatory regime.
This Declaration is made for the purpose of advising the court of the national security interests in and the security classification of information that may be relevant to the above captioned lawsuits [Kasza and Frost]. The statements made herein are based on (a) my personal consideration of the matter; (b) my personal knowledge; and (c) my evaluation of information made available to me in my official capacity. I have concluded that release of certain information relevant to these lawsuits would necessitate disclosure of properly classified information about the Air Force operating location near Groom Lake, Nevada.
It is my judgment, after personal consideration of the matter, that the national security information described in this Declaration and in the classified Declaration, concerning activities at the U.S. Air Force operating location near Groom Lake, Nevada constitutes military and state secrets. As a result, disclosure of this information in documentary or testimonial evidence must be barred in the interests of national security of the United States. Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Secretary of the Air Force, I hereby invoke a formal claim of military and state secrets privilege with respect to the disclosure of the national security information listed in paragraph four of this Declaration [the ten categories of information] and more fully discussed in the classified Declaration, whether through documentary or testimonial evidence.
This is the unclassified declaration as to why they are secret. The classified is reviewed in camera.
As the Supreme Court recognized over 120 years ago, "public policy forbids the maintenance of any suit in a court of justice, the trial of which would inevitably lead to the disclosure of matters which the law itself regards as confidential, and respecting which it will not allow the confidence to be violated." See Totten, 92 U.S. at 107.
Not only does the state secrets privilege bar Frost from establishing her prima facie case on any of her eleven claims, but any further proceeding in this matter would jeopardize national security. No protective procedure can salvage Frost's suit. Therefore, as the very subject matter of Frost's action is a state secret, we agree with the district court that her action must be dismissed. See Black, 62 F.3d at 1119 ("The information covered by the privilege is at the core of [the plaintiff's] claims, and we are satisfied that the litigation cannot be tailored to accommodate the loss of the privileged information."); Farnsworth Cannon, Inc., 635 F.2d at 281 ("It is evident that any attempt on the part of the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case would so threaten disclosure of state secrets that the overriding interest of the United States and the preservation of its state secrets precludes any further attempt to pursue this litigation.").
As the very subject matter of Frost's action is a state secret, we need not reach her other arguments regarding invocation of the privilege because no matter how they are resolved, there will be no effect on her ability to proceed. Kasza v. Browner, 133 F.3d 1159, 1170, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 245, *28-29, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 185, 98 Daily Journal DAR 258, 28 ELR 20449 (9th Cir. Nev. January 8, 1998).
If a judge insists on revealing privileged information, the lawyer follows ABA Model Rule 1.6 Comment 15. He asserts all nonfrivolous claims that the order is not authorized by other law or that the information sought is protected against disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or other applicable law. In the event of an adverse ruling, appeal.
The other case will be of an SCP employee being harmed by an SCP during an accident or brief. He will sue The Foundation and, like these Area 51 employees, find that he can't bring a shred of evidence to trial because not only his place of employment secret, but even the very existence of his cause of injury is secret. The Foundation will have an in camera meeting with the judge where they will tell the judge about how everything is secret and thus can't be brought to trial. Likely, all the judge will be told is that The Foundation is secret and deals with paranormal stuff that are secret. No details.
