Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review March 18, 2004 / 25 Adar, 5764

Jonathan Turley

Turley
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


Valued bond between client, lawyer eroding


http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | While lawyers often are valued for such canine-like attributes as aggression, persistence and even viciousness, loyalty is their most essential attribute. With confidentiality, it represents a type of legal Hippocratic oath: that we will do no harm to our clients.

Two disturbing trends that reduce confidentiality guarantees have surfaced recently: a rise in the number of exceptions to attorney-client confidentiality and an increase in lawyers discussing cases at the expense of their former clients.

The latest example came this month in the case of Scott Peterson, who is on trial for the murder of his wife, Laci, and their unborn child. Judge Alfred Delucchi ruled that the prosecution could use audiotapes that police secretly recorded of Peterson speaking with his first attorney before he was charged. Peterson sought to have these tapes excluded as a violation of his attorney-client privilege, but Delucchi ruled that the content essentially was inconsequential.

Many Americans, no doubt, are eager to hear the tapes and gain glimpses of Peterson in his most unguarded moments. But the rapid loss of confidentiality in attorney-client discussions should concern us far more than what Peterson said to his lawyer. If people — or companies — are worried that their conversations might be used against them, they will lose trust in our government.

The attorney-client privilege, which goes back to the days of Elizabethan England, encourages clients to speak honestly with their lawyers so the attorneys can give legal advice and stop the clients who are contemplating questionable acts. But if the confidentiality of citizens' conversations with their attorneys can be subject to case-by-case waivers — as Peterson's has been — Americans never will really know what will happen to the information they provide to their lawyers. That possibility naturally will encourage clients to be less candid. For lawyers, the loss of guarantees of confidentiality creates a real possibility that their representation could harm a client. In the Peterson case, the lawyer actually became a tool of the police by lowering his client's defenses after giving him what turned out to be a false assumption of confidentiality.

Donate to JWR


This risk is becoming particularly acute in the federal system. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has led a highly controversial attack on confidentiality by taping conversations between prisoners and their attorneys in jail while seeking information on terrorism. At the same time, the courts have rolled back protections by requiring attorneys to give evidence against their clients in a widening array of cases, including turning over incriminating evidence of a crime by the client.

The American Bar Association, feeling the heat from the recent corporate scandals, recently reduced client-lawyer-confidentiality protections by allowing attorneys to give incriminating evidence against their clients to prevent fraud. Federal agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission have mandated similar exceptions. Previously, attorneys could break confidentiality only if a client risked injuring or killing someone.

These policies will discourage open and frank discussions between attorneys and their clients. They also will encourage attorneys who want greater freedom to discuss past cases for their personal benefit. Lawyers increasingly are going public with discussions of subjects that were once considered confidential or inappropriate. The "tell-all" book is all the rage among attorneys. After the O.J. Simpson case, his defense attorney, Robert Shapiro, received $ 1.5 million for a book that directly contradicted his client's core defense — that police were racially motivated to frame him. As confidentiality rules decline, some attorneys will feel greater license to talk about their clients and cases.

Most recently, Larry Feldman, the former attorney of the boy accusing singer Michael Jackson of sexual misdeeds, has done the television circuit to discuss his early representation of the boy and his mother. While Feldman generally has supported the mother and repeatedly stressed that he did not want to waive confidentiality, he has revealed at least one fact from their meetings that could undermine her expected testimony: Feldman has stated that the mother never raised the subject of abuse of the child in their initial meetings.

Any loss of lawyer-client confidentiality comes at great cost to our society. The right to speak freely is a basic civil liberty that prevents false confessions and other abuses. Further, lawyers able to talk freely to their clients frequently are able to stop companies or individuals from acting irresponsibly.

The erosion of this privilege must be halted. Federal, state and bar rules governing such protections need to be strengthened, not weakened. Surveillance laws, for example, should bar the secret taping of attorney-client conversations unless a judge believes an attorney is in the process of committing a crime.

Civil liberties are under constant attack under the guise of battling terrorism. Any loss of the guarantee of confidentiality between lawyers and their clients could not come at a worse time for society.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.



JWR contributorJonathan Turley is a professor of law at George Washington Law School and a criminal defense attorney. Click here to visit his website. Comment by clicking here.

03/12/04: When Silence Isn't Golden: Martha Stewart's failure to testify holds a lesson for other celebrity defendants
03/09/04: Non-profits' executives avoid scrutiny, valid reforms
02/12/04: Reparations cause is coming up empty: Potential lawsuits destined to remain meritless in courts
02/03/04: Senate powder is the least of Congress' security concerns
01/29/04: Case of the Missing Evidence: Facts are often withheld from juries, which can lead to ill-informed verdicts
12/31/03: Celebrity is often its own best defense
12/27/03: U.S. soldiers lack best protective gear
12/17/03: Going for the gold in a competition of the corrupt
11/25/03: Will Malvo jurors spare life of young suspect?
11/11/03: The Black Tax: Of charlatans, crooks and victims and the reparations scam
11/04/03: Sniper case lacks appeal, public lessons of other cases
10/02/03: Is a soldier's life worth more than $650?
08/26/03: One justice wields too much power on today's Supreme Court. It's time to make the top bench much bigger
08/11/03: Don't let jobs grow on family trees
06/26/03: A Ruling That Only Goldilocks Could Love; We still don't know how much weight to give race in college admissions
06/24/03: 'Educating' Congress at the hands of lobbyists
06/12/03: Crooked arm of the law
06/10/03: Defense on lay-away
05/23/03: Innocence doesn't pay, either
05/15/03: A see-no-evil parole system
05/08/03: An American Gulag?
05/01/03: CUNY Law gives grads a cynical parting gift
04/22/03: Congress Must Send Spammers a Message
04/16/03: End Apartheid in the State Prisons
04/07/03: NBC's sacking of Peter Arnett over a critical analysis plays well in Baghdad
03/07/03: Rights on the Rack: Alleged torture in terror war imperils U.S. standards of humanity
02/25/03: How democracy could clear our snowy streets
02/11/03: Sanity and Justice Slipping Away
01/28/03: Quit horsing around, senator
01/14/03: Public Payroll: a Family Affair; Nepotism in Washington poses a threat to institutional integrity
01/09/03: DARPA and democracy
12/24/02: The 13th juror
12/19/02: Back to the admissions morass
12/10/02: Pro-Choice at Expense of Free Speech; NOW case against abortion protester may backfire
12/02/02: A cruel bait and switch for vets
11/15/02: Junk justice
11/07/02: OUR second-class soldiers
10/30/02: 'Quirin' revisited: The dark history of a military tribunal
10/22/02: Un-American Arrests: Mass detainments of the innocent may be the ultimate form of crowd control, but the tactic is unconstitutional
10/16/02: Reverse pawn shops? Broke state officials across the country have been looking for businesses to buy their assets at a fraction of their worth to pay for budget shortfalls
10/08/02: A legal tattoo hullabaloo
10/02/02: Gagged justice sets dangerous precedent
09/25/02: The Great Salmon Rose Caper
09/17/02: Reparations: A Scam Cloaked in Racial Pain
09/12/02: This country's hidden strength
09/04/02: 1st Amendment protects even the ugliest among us
08/28/02: A secret court goes public
08/20/02: I defended Ashcroft during his nomination; he's become a constitutional menace
08/07/02: San Francisco embracing states-rights
07/31/02: Who needs Jenny Craig when you can have Johnnie Cochran?
07/22/02: The meaning of justice and the madness of Zacarias Moussauoi
07/16/02: The President vs. the Presidency
07/08/02: How one woman's whims dictates the rights of millions
07/02/02: Just say 'no' to extracurricular activities
06/24/02: Missing Ted Bundy
06/14/02: DESTROYING A FAMILY TO SAVE IT
06/10/02: A comedy of eros06/14/02: 05/31/02: Beyond the 'reformed FBI' hype
05/23/02: Do we really need a Federal Marriage Amendment?
05/19/02: No "battlefield detainee" should leave home without a U.S. birth certificate
05/10/02: The perfect constitutional storm
04/26/02: 'Slave of Allah' wounds justice
04/12/02: The importance of being nameless
04/05/02: The adjusted value of justice
03/18/02: How Clinton got off: A law professor's take
03/11/02: Profiling and the terrorist lottery
03/05/02: Yes, Sharpton, there was a failure of justice
02/28/02: The Lay of the land
02/14/02: Living in constitutional denial
02/05/02: Legal Lesson for Afghanistan: War's Not a Slip-and-Fall Case
01/25/02: Sever "Jihad Johnny"'s ties to his homeland
01/21/02: "Out of sight, out of mind," but they're still prisoners
01/14/02: Your papers, please!
01/07/02: Prescription for disaster
12/18/01: Madison and the Mujahedeen
12/07/01: In the U.S., espionage crime is easy to understand but difficult to prove
11/19/01: What type of 'creature' would defend bin Laden?
11/19/01: Could bin Laden be acquitted in a trial?
10/28/01: The ultimate sign of the different times in which we are living
10/25/01: Al-Qaida produces killers, not thinkers
09/28/01: The Boxer rebellion and the war against terrorism
08/31/01: Bring back the silent Condit
08/27/01: Working out the body politic

© 2003, Jonathan Turley