Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 450.0

524US2

Unit: $U92

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

Cite as: 524 U. S. 399 (1998)

405

Opinion of the Court

mentary disclosure of communications as an exception to the
privilege: “[T]he general rule with respect to conﬁdential
communications . . . is that such communications are privi-
leged during the testator’s lifetime and, also, after the testa-
tor’s death unless sought to be disclosed in litigation between
the testator’s heirs.” Osborn, 561 F. 2d, at 1340. The ra-
tionale for such disclosure is that it furthers the client’s in-
tent.

Id., at 1340, n. 11.2

Indeed, in Glover v. Patten, 165 U. S. 394, 406–408 (1897),
this Court,
in recognizing the testamentary exception,
expressly assumed that the privilege continues after the
individual’s death. The Court explained that testamentary
disclosure was permissible because the privilege, which
normally protects the client’s interests, could be impliedly
waived in order to fulﬁll the client’s testamentary intent.
Id., at 407–408 (quoting Blackburn v. Crawfords, 3 Wall. 175
(1866), and Russell v. Jackson, supra).

The great body of this case law supports, either by holding
or considered dicta, the position that the privilege does sur-
vive in a case such as the present one. Given the language
of Rule 501, at the very least the burden is on the Independ-

2 About half the States have codiﬁed the testamentary exception by pro-
viding that a personal representative of the deceased can waive the privi-
lege when heirs or devisees claim through the deceased client (as opposed
to parties claiming against the estate, for whom the privilege is not
waived). See, e. g., Ala. Rule Evid. 502 (1996); Ark. Code Ann. § 16–41–
101, Rule 502 (Supp. 1997); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27–503, Rule 503 (1995).
These statutes do not address expressly the continuation of the privilege
outside the context of testamentary disputes, although many allow the
attorney to assert the privilege on behalf of the client apparently without
temporal limit. See, e. g., Ark. Code Ann. § 16–41–101, Rule 502(c) (Supp.
1997). They thus do not refute or afﬁrm the general presumption in the
case law that the privilege survives. California’s statute is exceptional in
that it apparently allows the attorney to assert the privilege only so long
as a holder of the privilege (the estate’s personal representative) exists,
suggesting the privilege terminates when the estate is wound up. See
Cal. Code Evid. Ann. §§ 954, 957 (West 1995). But no other State has
followed California’s lead in this regard.