The privilege is generally codified as a rule of evidence. Though the attorney-client privilege was originally conceived to cover communications between lawyers and individual clients, it is now clear that the privilege also covers certain communications with clients that are corporations or other entities.
The principal rationale for the attorney-client privilege in the United States is that privileged communication is needed for the "ascertainment of truth for the ends of justice." As stated by McCormick's famous evidence treatise, this utilitarian theory rests on three propositions:
First the law is complex and in order for members of the society to comply with it in the management of their affairs and the settlement of their disputes they require the assistance of expert lawyers. Second, lawyers are unable to discharge this function without the fullest possible knowledge of the facts of the client's situation. And last, the client cannot be expected to place the lawyer in full possession of the facts without the assurance that the lawyer cannot be compelled, over the client's objection, to reveal the confidences in court.Though this is the principal rationale for the privilege, it is bolstered by other theories. McCormick states that "[a]t the present time it seems most realistic to portray the attorney-client privilege as supported in part by its traditional utilitarian justification, and in part by the integral role it is perceived to play in the adversary system itself." The Supreme Court endorsed this rationale for the attorney-client privilege in Upjohn Co. v. United States:
Its purpose is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice. The privilege recognizes that sound legal advice or advocacy serves public ends and that such advice or advocacy depends upon the lawyer's being fully informed by the client.
No comments:
Post a Comment