Opinion ID: 1236973
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statements to Jailhouse Lawyer

Text: Finally, Owens contends that incriminating statements made to fellow inmate/jailhouse lawyer Albert Burgess were improperly admitted as they were protected by the attorney-client privilege. This argument is without merit. The attorney-client privilege protects against disclosure of confidential communications by a client to his attorney. State v. Love , 275 S.C. 55, 271 S.E. (2d) 110 (1980). This privilege is based upon a wise policy that considers that the interests of society are best promoted by inviting the utmost confidence on the part of the client in disclosing his secrets to this professional advisor, under the pledge of the law that such confidence should not be abused by permitting disclosure of such communications. Id. , 275 S.C. at 59, 271 S.E. (2d) at 112. The privilege is strictly construed to protect only confidences disclosed within the relationship. State v. Doster , 276 S.C. 647, 284 S.E. (2d) 218 (1981). We decline to extend the attorney-client privilege to so-called jailhouse lawyers. These inmates may be of assistance to other inmates in preparing petitions or briefs, but they are not professional advisors upon whom clients rely and to whom clients impart their strictest confidences. Accordingly, we hold that incriminating statements made by Owens to fellow inmate Albert Burgess were not protected by the attorney-client privilege and were properly admitted at trial. The judgment below is Affirmed. HARWELL, C.J., and FINNEY, TOAL and MOORE, JJ., concur.