In the US Justice System, Truth-Seeking ought to take precedence over Attorney Client Privilege

" In the law of evidence, a client's privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, confidential communications between the client and his or her attorney. Such privilege protects communications between attorney and client that are made for the purpose of furnishing or obtaining professional legal advice or assistance. That privilege that permits an attorney to refuse to testify as to communications from the client. It belongs to the client, not the attorney, and hence only the client may waive it. In federal courts, state law is applied with respect to such privilege. " - The Free Legal DictionaryIn this debate, we are not debating the existence of the legal protection in its entirety but rather the priority which it should take in our legal system. How ever in order to better appreciate the nature of the legal protection before arguing its priority in detail, I will first defend the law existentially. It is important to understand that Attorney Client Privilege sits at the Crux of two diametrically opposed functions of the Legal system. (Personal note: I refuse to call the modern United States courts "Justice system" For reasons we can get into another time. ) Two-Very important forces are at work in the courts. The accused and his/her legal representative and the prosecutor, which is better referred to as the State. Between these two forces is a set of protections for the accused intended to protect the accused from over zealous courts and finally over these two sits the jury. Among these legal protections is most notably the IV and V amendment and though Attorney Client privilege is not the first legal protection that comes to mind-it is no less important. Picture if you would, A world where the prosecuting attorney could at any time, summon transcripts of the interactions between an Attorney and an accused. For a moment, assume that this Protection was erased all together. Every question you asked... every concern you expressed to an attorney could scrutinized in Court. In such a world where this legal protection did not exist a defense attorney cannot forfill, with any effectiveness one of their most basic functions which is to provide sound legal advise. Further, such is the case that with out these legal protections a Defending attorney would serve as a defacto agent of the prosectuor in terms of fact finding. Understand first and foremost that Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law, You CANNOT talk to a cop as an accused and receive a positive outcome nothing you say to an aresting officer under any circumstances will be used to your benefit, EVER. This is important to understand in context because a police office is not an Impartial party in the legal system, both arresting officer and prosecuting attorney as well as the judge represent the state. A police officer is not an attorney, they are not able to render legal advice, this much while it is obvious is no less important to establish as they are an agent of the state- like the prosecutor they are always against you and while the judge is litterally supose to be impartial, they too represent the state and in the vast majority of cases their careers where built on being prosecutors themselves. Once again returning academic, we are assuming that Attorney Client privilege was stripped away entirely. In this world, a defence attorney now has a similar burden, while they are tasked with not just proving innocence in court but also rendering sound legal advice, in criminal and civil court alike. With out attorney client privilege anything you say to your attorney maybe used against you in the court of law. This, is chief among the reasons why such a legal protection Exists. In the law as it exists today, Attorney client privilege is not all encompassing, that is there are exemptions and situations to which the Attorney Client Privilege does not apply. The most common exemptions that are not protected are as follows:Disclosure to prevent a crime, tort, or fraud The crime-fraud exception can render the privilege moot when communications between an attorney and client are themselves used to further a crime, tort, or fraud. In Clark v. United States, SCOTUS writes that "A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told." The crime-fraud exception also does require that the crime or fraud discussed between client and attorney be carried out to be triggered. US Courts have not yet conclusively ruled how little knowledge an attorney can have of the underlying crime or fraud before the privilege detaches and the attorney's communications or requisite testimony become admissible.(Sourced from Wikipedia) Disclosure ostensibly to support lawyer's own interests Lawyers may disclose confidential information relating to the retainer where they are reasonably seeking to collect payment for services rendered. This is justified on policy grounds. If lawyers were unable to disclose such information, many would undertake legal work only where payment is made in advance. This would arguably adversely affect the public access to justice. Lawyers may also breach the duty where they are defending themselves against disciplinary or legal proceedings. A client who initiates proceedings against a lawyer effectively waives rights to confidentiality. This is justified on grounds of procedural fairness—a lawyer unable to reveal information relating to the retainer would be unable to defend themselves against such actions.(Sourced from Wikipedia) Disclosure of information that is not confidential Clearly, information that is not confidential does not fall under the duty of confidentiality. Disclosure of information that is already in the public domain does not breach the duty. Further, information that was not public knowledge at the time of the retainer agreement is not subject to the duty if it subsequently enters the public domain. Therefore, the purpose served by maintaining the confidence—the protection of the client—is arguably extinguished. Nonetheless, the lawyer still owes a duty of loyalty, and clients may feel betrayed if such information is disclosed, even if it had become public knowledge. Though there are no legal ramifications for disclosure, discretion on part of the lawyer may be in the long term interests of maintaining the propriety of the legal profession.(Sourced from Wikipedia) Disclosure for the purpose of probate Another case is for the probate of a last will and testament. Previously confidential communications between the lawyer and testator are no longer secret for the purpose of proving the will is the intent of the now deceased decedent. In many instances, the will, codicil, or other parts of the estate plan require explanation or interpretation through other proof (extrinsic evidence), such as the attorney's file notes or correspondence from the client. In certain cases, the client may desire or consent to revelation of personal or family secrets only after his or her death; for example, the will may leave a legacy to a paramour or a natural child. Courts have occasionally revoked the privilege after the death of the client if it is deemed that doing so serves the client's intent, such as in the case of resolving testamentary disputes among heirs.(Sourced from Wikipedia) With these exemptions in mind, adequate balance already exists between the legal system's ability to function and the individual rights of an accused. It is critical first and foremost to understand that legal system is devoid by design of compassion as a concept. The state is never on your side as a defended and the prosecutor cannot ever be of assistance to an accused. I remind you further that in the court the state is represented in the prosecutor, The judge and the arresting officer(s). To counter this, the accused has only their legal protections and their representative to defend them.The defence rests. ;)