Discuss attorney-client privilege and its exception.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers will vary. To defend a client effectively, a defense attorney must have access to all the facts concerning the case, even those that may be harmful to the defendant. To promote the unrestrained flow of information between the two parties, legislatures and lawyers themselves have constructed rules of attorney-client privilege. These rules require that communications between a client and his or her attorney be kept confidential, unless the client consents to the disclosure. Attorney-client privilege does not stop short of confessions. Indeed, if, on hearing any statement that points toward guilt, the defense attorney could alert the prosecution or try to resign from the case, attorney-client privilege would be rendered meaningless. Without attorney-client privilege, observes legal expert John Kaplan, lawyers would be forced to give their clients the equivalent of the Miranda warning before representing them. In other words, lawyers would have to make clear what clients could or could not say in the course of preparing for trial, because any incriminating statement might be used against the client in court. Such a development would have serious ramifications for the criminal justice system.The scope of attorney-client privilege is not all encompassing. In United States v. Zolin (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that lawyers may disclose the contents of a conversation with a client if the client has provided information concerning a crime that has yet to be committed. This exception applies only to communications involving a crime that is ongoing or will occur in the future. If the client reveals a past crime, the privilege is still in effect, and the attorney may not reveal any details of that particular criminal act.