He literally says "we do not encourage you to do anything illegal" — beyond that, an interpretation of the advice could just be to just check with the bank for records, or to check spouse's phone. Both of these and such interpretations at large may be unethical but are arguably perfectly legal. Where only a particular interpretation of the speech - which he expressly clarifies as not being the correct interpretation - could be seen as devoid of legal ethics, there is no case for the BCO to step in (not that they would want to pointlessly mess with his father, anyway).
Also, you'll find lots of "coaching/tutoring" videos on the net, with lawyers explaining what to say and avoid in court during cross-examinations - without disclaimers regarding perjury etc. Multiple judgments have noted such stuff is perfectly legal. Lawyers need to be given some breathing space, and practically we all know how criminal & family laws work in this country — such practical but morally dubious practices comprise half their work, what do you think every established criminal lawyer does?!?
Also, you'll find lots of "coaching/tutoring" videos on the net, with lawyers explaining what to say and avoid in court during cross-examinations - without disclaimers regarding perjury etc. Multiple judgments have noted such stuff is perfectly legal. Lawyers need to be given some breathing space, and practically we all know how criminal & family laws work in this country — such practical but morally dubious practices comprise half their work, what do you think every established criminal lawyer does?!?