Attorney-Client Privilege

This is not a particularly new story, but I was listening to KGO (local AM station) last night, and caller after caller denounced the attorneys who kept the privilege.

The argument (condensed) seems to be that the attorneys should have (happily?) accepted disbarment as a price for doing the ‘right thing’ (IE, telling the courts that their client, Andrew Wilson, had confessed to the crime Mr. Logan was convicted up.)

While it’s nice to say this, and sound so morally superior, the statement shows only a very 1 dimensional thought process. First of all, disbarment (if it occurred at all) is not the only concern. The attorneys client could and I’m sure would sue his counsel for malpractice. So, not only would they be out of their jobs, they would face a civil suit for a good amount of money.

Even then, you might say, ‘moral people’ would still do the right thing. The question comes, then, what next?

The betrayal of the privilege would not get Wilson convicted. The privilege belongs to Wilson, not his attorneys. So, while the attorney could have ignored the privilege, and divulge the information, it would not admissible against Wilson. In addition, and evidence found subsequent to the disclosure could arguable be suppressed.

And, unless Wilson would also have said (Yes, I did it), it is unlikely that the attorney’s statements, alone, would be enough to have gotten Logan out. Think about it: do we really want a system where an attorney, without other proof, could get someone out of jail by saying ‘my client said he did it’. Such a system would be ripe for abuse.

Instead of focusing on the ‘privilege’, I think it might be better to focus on how Mr. Logan was convicted for something he didn’t do. That’s where the problem stems: That Mr. Logan was charged and convicted with evidence that clearly must be erroneous, as we now know (or strongly suspect) that he is not guilt.