The Attorney-Client privilege is limited by a number of exceptions. One of those exceptions is the Crime-Fraud exception which excludes from protection of disclosure communications between an attorney and a client involving advice for a future wrongdoing such as for a crime or for a fraud.[1]United States v. Zolin, 109 S.Ct. 2619, 491 U.S. 554 (1989)(The attorney-client privilege must necessarily protect the confidences of wrongdoers, but the reason for that protection—the centrality … Continue reading
The purpose of the Crime-Fraud exception is to limit the privilege of communications between an attorney and client so that it does not extend to advice for commission of a crime or a fraud.[2]Id., 491 U.S. at 563. (It is the purpose of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege to assure that the “seal of secrecy,” between lawyer and client does not extend to … Continue reading
Either a court or a court-appointed master first determines whether the content of challenged attorney-client communications involves any issue involving discussions of future wrongdoing. If the communications have such content, then the attorney-client privilege does not protect them from disclosure.
© 2022 Ralph D. Davis
References
| ↑1 | United States v. Zolin, 109 S.Ct. 2619, 491 U.S. 554 (1989)(The attorney-client privilege must necessarily protect the confidences of wrongdoers, but the reason for that protection—the centrality of open client and attorney communication to the proper functioning of our adversary system of justice—“ceas[es] to operate at a certain point, namely, where the desired advice refers not to prior wrongdoing, but to future wrongdoing.” 8 Wigmore, § 2298, p. 573 (emphasis in original). |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | Id., 491 U.S. at 563. (It is the purpose of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege to assure that the “seal of secrecy,” between lawyer and client does not extend to communications “made for the purpose of getting advice for the commission of a fraud” or crime.). |