It depends on how you interpret these phrases. This is valid logic if
"More likely to side with X" => The lawyers believe that you are more likely to side with the plaintiff than with the defendant on the basis of this information (Pr(P | Over $50k) - Pr(D | Over $50k) > epsilon)
"No effect on either lawyer": The lawyers believe that this information provides no insight into your decision (|Pr(P | Under $50k) - Pr(D | Under $50k)| < epsilon).
Calling that a Google data breach is a pretty big misrepresentation; keyloggers installed on user machines collected passwords typed into a number of websites, including Google's.
(disclaimer: I work for Google, have no special knowledge of the incident in question)
I don't think that this is aimed at you. JabavuAdams suggests that "I couldn't possibly be sexist because I'm not a bad person" is the reason that many commenters are dismissive of the idea that there may be sexism in an establishment to which they contribute.