Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

Limits to Attorney Client Privilege

Normally, communications between attorneys and clients are privileged. That is to allow a defendant a "fair chance" to put up the best possible defense, without having their strategy revealed.

There is one possible case that ought to be the exception to the rule; the possibility that the defense strategy crafted by the attorneys was itself illegal. Then, there may have been TWO crimes committed; the original crime, and the proposed "coverup." And it's just a matter of fixing the blame, whereby the client commited both crimes, or whether the attorneys orchestrated the coverup, (and possibly gave erroneous advice on the first event). A case in point is Bank of America, in its apparently illegal acquisiton of Merrill Lynch.

This exception to the rule should be triggered, in our opinion, by charging the attorneys. (Then both client and attorneys will have to get new attorneys). But if the "rap" is that the attorneys caused the client to commit the crime, then we need to open "attorney-client" privilege wide enough to see if this is the case. By alleging "on advice of attorney," as a defense, the client is in effect offering to turn "state's evidence.

There is an analogy in marriages; one spouse should not be made to testify against the other. Unless s/he volunteers to do so.