Week 1 - Overview of Model Rules; Confidentiality and (versus?) Privilege

Background of the Case

Tyree consulted attorney Purcell about an eviction, after which Purcell informed police that Tyree threatened to burn down his apartment building. Police discovered arson materials at the building the next day, leading to Tyree's arrest and indictment for attempted arson. While disciplinary rules permitted Purcell to disclose the arson threat to prevent a crime, ethical permission to disclose does not make the statement admissible in court. Supreme Judicial Court accepted the case to decide whether the attorney-client privilege protects Purcell's conversation with Tyree.

Central Legal Dispute

whether the crime-fraud exception applies to overcome the attorney-client privilege.

Crime-Fraud Exception

A legal doctrine that removes attorney-client privilege from communications,, applies when a client seeks legal services to aid in planning or committing a crime, which a judge decides as a factual question.

When attorney-client privilege applies

only if a communication was made to facilitate legal services, with the party claiming privilege bearing the burden of proof.

Reasoning of the Court

Prosecutors must prove the crime-fraud exception by a preponderance of the evidence

While Tyree discussed arson and later prepared for it, the evidence did not prove he consulted Purcell for help in committing the crime.

Purcell disclosed the threat solely under a discretionary ethical rule designed to protect public safety and prevent harm to others.

When is statement in connection to a crime privileged?

A statement expressing an intent to commit a crime remains privileged unless the client sought advice or assistance to carry out the crime.

Why must courts apply the crime-fraud exception cautiously

so attorneys are not discouraged from making public safety disclosures out of fear of harming their clients.

Rule of Law

A client's statement that they intend to commit a future crime remains protected by attorney-client privilege unless they consulted the lawyer specifically to get advice or assistance in carrying out that crime. Furthermore, just because an attorney ethically discloses a client's threat to protect public safety, that disclosure does not automatically make the statement admissible as evidence in court.

Background of Case

Macumber tried to introduce evidence that another individual, who had since died, confessed to committing the murders to two defense attorneys.

Reasoning

Because the privilege is created by statute, attorneys cannot voluntarily waive it, meaning the trial court properly excluded the deceased man's confession.

Perpetual duration of privilege: Designed to encourage full, uninhibited disclosures. To ensure clients feel secure, protection extended by prvilege is perpetual, does not expire because of death.

Privilege belongs strictly to the client

Rule of Law

The attorney-client privilege is a statutory right owned by the client that does not expire upon the client's death, and a lawyer cannot unilaterally waive it to disclose confidential communications—such as a third-party confession—even if it could assist a defendant in a criminal trial.