Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 459.0

524US2

Unit: $U92

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

414

SWIDLER & BERLIN v. UNITED STATES

O(cid:146)Connor, J., dissenting

should be permitted to assess whether interests in fairness
and accuracy outweigh the justiﬁcations for the privilege.

124 F. 3d, at 235.

A number of exceptions to the privilege already qualify its
protections, and an attorney “who tells his client that the
expected communications are absolutely and forever privi-
In the
leged is oversimplifying a bit.”
situation where the posthumous privilege most frequently
arises—a dispute between heirs over the decedent’s will—
the privilege is widely recognized to give way to the interest
in settling the estate. See Glover v. Patten, 165 U. S. 394,
406–408 (1897). This testamentary exception, moreover,
may be invoked in some cases where the decedent would not
have chosen to waive the privilege. For example, “a dece-
dent might want to provide for an illegitimate child but at
the same time much prefer that the relationship go undis-
closed.”
124 F. 3d, at 234. Among the Court’s rationales
for a broad construction of the posthumous privilege is its
assertion that “[m]any attorneys act as counselors on per-
sonal and family matters, where, in the course of obtaining
the desired advice, conﬁdences about family members or
. which the client
ﬁnancial problems must be revealed .
would not wish divulged.” Ante, at 407–408. That rea-
soning, however, would apply in the testamentary context
with equal force. Nor are other existing exceptions to the
privilege—for example, the crime-fraud exception or the
exceptions for claims relating to attorney competence or
compensation—necessarily consistent with “encouraging full
and frank communication” or “protecting the client’s inter-
ests.” Ante, at 410. Rather, those exceptions reﬂect the
understanding that, in certain circumstances, the privilege
“ ‘ceases to operate’ ” as a safeguard on “the proper function-
ing of our adversary system.” See United States v. Zolin,
491 U. S. 554, 562–563 (1989).

.

Finally, the common law authority for the proposition that
the privilege remains absolute after the client’s death is not
Indeed, the Court acknowl-
a monolithic body of precedent.