Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 452

524US2

Unit: $U92

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

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

407

Opinion of the Court

d (Proposed Final Draft No. 1, Mar. 29, 1996). But even
these critics clearly recognize that established law supports
the continuation of the privilege and that a contrary rule
would be a modiﬁcation of the common law. See, e. g., Muel-
ler & Kirkpatrick, supra, at 379; Restatement of the Law
Governing Lawyers, supra, § 127, Comment c; 24 C. Wright
& K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure § 5498, p. 483
(1986).

Despite the scholarly criticism, we think there are weighty
reasons that counsel
in favor of posthumous application.
Knowing that communications will remain conﬁdential even
after death encourages the client to communicate fully and
frankly with counsel. While the fear of disclosure, and the
consequent withholding of information from counsel, may be
reduced if disclosure is limited to posthumous disclosure in
a criminal context, it seems unreasonable to assume that it
vanishes altogether. Clients may be concerned about repu-
tation, civil liability, or possible harm to friends or family.
Posthumous disclosure of such communications may be as
feared as disclosure during the client’s lifetime.

The Independent Counsel suggests, however, that his pro-
posed exception would have little to no effect on the client’s
willingness to conﬁde in his attorney. He reasons that only
clients intending to perjure themselves will be chilled by a
rule of disclosure after death, as opposed to truthful clients
or those asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege. This
is because for the latter group, communications disclosed by
the attorney after the client’s death purportedly will reveal
only information that the client himself would have revealed
if alive.

The Independent Counsel assumes, incorrectly we believe,
that the privilege is analogous to the Fifth Amendment’s
protection against self-incrimination. But as suggested
above, the privilege serves much broader purposes. Clients
consult attorneys for a wide variety of reasons, only one of
which involves possible criminal liability. Many attorneys