If that is true, then the other side in litigation can obtain copies of the information. In the attorney-client privilege, the lawyer owes a duty to the client to maintain the client s confidences. Conversely, the client is assured that communications to the lawyer, if properly maintained, are immune from forced disclosure. Even if the information is relevant to some legitimate court inquiry, the attorney can not disclose the information without the client s permission. 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.