At the bottom of the gag order is states that OWS "may disclose the attached subpoena to an attorney for [OWS] for the purpose of receiving legal advice".
Is that required to be there? Is that just a curtesy? It would be unconstitutional otherwise, but, I don't know. It just seems odd. Is the attorney now bound by a gag order?
Well maybe they could contact an attorney through an online chat system that does leak conversations and surprisingly posts those private conversations about shady things govt wants to their website front page. What a bummer. Some lawyer needs to create www.gagorderattorney.com