When Legal Confidentiality Doesn't Apply

Lawyer-client confidentiality is a fundamental principle of the legal system, but there are certain circumstances in which it does not apply. For instance, if a client seeks legal advice to cover up a crime or fraud, either in the future or after the fact, the privilege does not apply. Additionally, if a third party is present during a confidential conversation, the privilege may be compromised unless the third party is essential, such as an interpreter. Lawyer-client confidentiality also does not apply if the information is already public knowledge or can be easily acquired. In California, for example, the law recognises two exceptions to the rule: planning an ongoing crime and imminent harm.

When the client intends to commit a crime or fraud

Lawyer-client confidentiality is a fundamental principle of the client-lawyer relationship. However, there are exceptions to this rule, including when the client intends to commit a crime or fraud.

The crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege states that a client's communication with their lawyer is not privileged if the client made it with the intention of committing or covering up a crime or fraud. This exception applies if the client is in the process of committing or intends to commit a crime or fraudulent act and communicates with the lawyer to further this goal or to conceal their actions.

For example, if a client asks their lawyer about the penalties for cooking and selling illegal drugs, the conversation is privileged as the client is merely seeking advice. However, if the client then asks for advice on hiding or destroying evidence, or how to launder profits through a legitimate business, the crime-fraud exception would apply.

The crime-fraud exception also applies in situations where the client's objective is to commit a civil tort, such as unlawful eviction. Additionally, communications about ongoing or future crimes or frauds are generally not privileged, while those about past wrongdoings usually are.

It is important to note that the client's intent determines whether the exception applies, and most courts will apply it even if the attorney was unaware of or did not participate in the crime or fraud. In such cases, the attorney may be subpoenaed and required to disclose the information. They may also have an ethical obligation to report certain types of information, such as threats to harm someone or knowledge of crucial evidence.

The specific rules regarding the crime-fraud exception may vary by state, but the main purpose is to balance general safety concerns with the integrity of the attorney-client relationship.

When the client has waived the privilege

Lawyer-client confidentiality is a fundamental principle of the client-lawyer relationship. However, there are situations in which the client may waive this privilege.

The client is the holder of the privilege and has the authority to assert or waive it. A client can waive the lawyer-client privilege by voluntarily disclosing a substantial portion of the privileged communication to a third party or giving consent to the disclosure by anyone else. For example, if a client fails to claim the lawyer-client privilege in a court proceeding when they have the legal right to do so, it is considered that they have consented to the disclosure of the privileged information.

The presence of a third party during a privileged exchange between attorney and client will likely waive the privilege. In such cases, the information conveyed does not enjoy protection from disclosure. Additionally, if a privileged communication is disclosed to a third party after the exchange, the privilege may be waived, as the attorney-client privilege can be waived by a careless, unintentional, or inadvertent disclosure.

It is important to note that the client's waiver of the privilege does not give the lawyer permission to disclose confidential information. The lawyer still has a duty of confidentiality and can only disclose information with the client's consent or if an exception to the confidentiality rule applies.

When the lawyer believes the client's confidence will result in death or harm

Lawyer-client confidentiality is a crucial aspect of the legal profession, allowing clients to openly share information with their lawyers, who are then bound by law to keep these communications private. However, there are certain situations where this confidentiality is not applicable, and lawyers are permitted or even required to disclose their client's secrets to prevent harm or death.

In most jurisdictions, lawyers are allowed to break confidentiality if they believe that doing so will prevent death or substantial bodily harm to their client or a third party. For instance, if a lawyer's client informs them of plans to physically harm someone, the lawyer can disclose this information to the authorities to prevent the intended victim from coming to harm. This was demonstrated in the case of *Shorter v. State*, where a client informed his divorce lawyer of his intention to kill his wife's boyfriend. The lawyer reported this statement to the police, and the client was arrested before he could carry out his plan.

It is important to note that the threshold for breaking confidentiality in these situations is high. The harm in question must be "reasonably certain" to occur, and the lawyer's disclosure must be necessary to prevent it. For example, in the case of *United States v. White*, a lawyer learned that their client had accidentally discharged toxic waste into a town's water supply. The lawyer was permitted to disclose this information to the authorities because there was a present and substantial risk that people drinking the water would contract serious illnesses, and the lawyer's disclosure was necessary to mitigate this risk.

Additionally, the duty of confidentiality only applies to communications made during the lawyer's representation of the client. If a lawyer learns of their client's plans to cause harm outside of this professional relationship, they may not be bound by the same confidentiality rules.

In summary, while lawyer-client confidentiality is a fundamental principle of legal practice, there are exceptions in place to protect the public from imminent harm. Lawyers must exercise their best judgment in these situations, weighing the potential for harm against the importance of maintaining their client's trust.

When the client divulges information in a public setting

Lawyer-client confidentiality is a fundamental principle of the legal system. It encourages clients to be open, honest, and thorough with their lawyers, without fear of self-incrimination or other legal penalties. However, there are situations where this confidentiality is not applicable, and lawyers may be required or permitted to disclose information shared by their clients. One such situation is when the client divulges information in a public setting.

Attorney-client privilege is a common-law doctrine that protects the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients. This privilege is not absolute, and there are exceptions where the privilege does not apply. One notable exception is when the communication between the attorney and client occurs in a public setting, such as a public cafe. In such cases, it is unlikely that the information shared aloud would be protected under attorney-client privilege.

The public nature of the communication is essential in determining whether the privilege applies. If a client speaks to their lawyer in a public place, they cannot reasonably expect the same level of privacy as a private conversation. For example, if a third party overhears the conversation and testifies about it, the attorney-client privilege would not apply. Similarly, if a client repeats a conversation with their attorney to someone else, they effectively waive the privilege for that information.

Additionally, the intent and purpose of the communication play a role in determining whether attorney-client privilege applies. If the communication is made for the purpose of seeking legal advice and maintaining confidentiality, it is more likely to be protected. On the other hand, if the communication is casual and occurs outside of office hours, it may not fall under attorney-client privilege. The content and context of the conversation are also crucial factors in determining the applicability of the privilege.

It is worth noting that while attorney-client privilege provides legal protection, attorney-client confidentiality is an ethical standard or rule of professional conduct. Confidentiality states that attorneys should not disclose client information unless it is reasonably understood to be known by others. Even in public settings, attorneys are expected to maintain confidentiality for sensitive information shared by their clients. However, if the information disclosed in public is already known or easily accessible, attorneys may not be obligated to keep it confidential.

In summary, when a client divulges information in a public setting, attorney-client privilege may not apply. The public nature of the communication, the intent, and the reasonable expectation of privacy all factor into the applicability of the privilege. Attorneys are still expected to maintain confidentiality, but the specific circumstances and content of the disclosure will determine the extent of this confidentiality.

When the lawyer is compelled by an overriding public policy interest

Lawyer-client confidentiality is a long-standing legal principle that ensures clients can discuss their legal situation with their attorney without fear of reprisal. However, there are exceptions where a lawyer is compelled by an overriding public policy interest to disclose information.

One such exception is the prevention of imminent harm or death. For instance, if a client discloses to their lawyer that they intend to kill someone, the lawyer can report this statement to the authorities to protect the intended victim. In this case, the lawyer's duty to protect human life supersedes the confidentiality agreement.

Another exception is the crime or fraud exception. If a client seeks advice from a lawyer to assist in the furtherance or concealment of a crime or fraud, the communication is not privileged. In such cases, the lawyer may be compelled to disclose information to prevent or mitigate the harm caused by the illegal activity.

In some jurisdictions, public interest law specifically refers to legal practices undertaken to help marginalized or underrepresented people or to effect social change. Lawyers practicing public interest law may be more inclined to break confidentiality to further these goals.

Additionally, in the United States, the USA Patriot Act allows for increased authority to conduct searches and monitor communications between inmates and lawyers without judicial intervention. This means that in certain cases, a lawyer's communications with their client may be monitored if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that the inmate may use these communications to facilitate acts of terrorism.

While lawyer-client confidentiality is a fundamental principle, there are situations where an overriding public policy interest may compel the lawyer to disclose information. These exceptions are in place to protect the public and ensure that the legal system serves the greater good.

Frequently asked questions