Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 455.0

524US2

Unit: $U92

[09-15-00 14:34:37] PAGES PGT: OPIN

410

SWIDLER & BERLIN v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

sistent with the purposes of the privilege, see Glover, 165
U. S., at 407–408; United States v. Zolin, 491 U. S. 554, 562–
563 (1989), while a posthumous exception in criminal cases
appears at odds with the goals of encouraging full and frank
communication and of protecting the client’s interests. A
“no harm in one more exception” rationale could contribute
to the general erosion of the privilege, without reference to
common-law principles or “reason and experience.”

Finally, the Independent Counsel, relying on cases such as
United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 710 (1974), and Branz-
burg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665 (1972), urges that privileges be
strictly construed because they are inconsistent with the
paramount judicial goal of truth seeking. But both Nixon
and Branzburg dealt with the creation of privileges not rec-
ognized by the common law, whereas here we deal with one
of the oldest recognized privileges in the law. And we are
asked, not simply to “construe” the privilege, but to narrow
it, contrary to the weight of the existing body of case law.
It has been generally, if not universally, accepted, for well
over a century, that the attorney-client privilege survives
the death of the client in a case such as this. While the
arguments against the survival of the privilege are by no
means frivolous, they are based in large part on specula-
tion—thoughtful speculation, but speculation nonetheless—
as to whether posthumous termination of the privilege would
diminish a client’s willingness to conﬁde in an attorney.
In
an area where empirical information would be useful, it is
scant and inconclusive.

Rule 501’s direction to look to “the principles of the com-
mon law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the
United States in the light of reason and experience” does not
mandate that a rule, once established, should endure for all
time. Funk v. United States, 290 U. S. 371, 381 (1933). But

vives—if attorneys were required as a matter of practice to testify or
provide notes in criminal proceedings, cases discussing that practice would
surely exist.