Deliberate or accidental disclosure can lead to a malpractice suit and disbarment. Similar privileges apply to physicians and the clergy. Somewhat similar is the privilege claimed by the press to protect confidential informants. Granted, the freedom of the press provisions of the First Amendment of the Constitution provides fundamental protection to journalist that are not available otherwise. But, the same argument could be maintained that the privilege was waived once a reporter named her sources in an e-mail message that was transmitted over an open network.
Judges don t like it when witnesses refuse to answer questions in court.
You have to understand that the exercise of these privileges is often seen as obstructing justice, not furthering it. When the lawyer, doctor, clergy or journalist is forced to withhold information, the public can be outraged. And the judge often threatens contempt of court proceedings. At least in the case of the lawyer, doctor and the clergy, the professional has an ethical duty to protect the client s confidences unless the client authorizes the disclosure. Even if the professional believes the clients best interest could be served by disclosure, silence is required.