Opinion ID: 2516086
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Effect Of The Death Of The Client

Text: Having decided that the communications made at the joint meeting were not privileged and that the Brewers' suicide letters did not destroy any existing privilege applicable to other communications, we turn to the question of the effect of Frank Brewer's death on the attorney-client privilege. The precedents uniformly hold or presume that the attorney-client privilege ordinarily survives the death of the client. See, e.g., Mayberry v. Indiana, 670 N.E.2d 1262, 1267 n. 5 (Ind.1996); John Doe Grand Jury Investigation, 562 N.E.2d at 70. The Supreme Court has noted that the very existence of the testamentary exception, discussed in greater detail below, presumes that the privilege must survive the death of the client. Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399, 404, 118 S.Ct. 2081, 141 L.Ed.2d 379 (1998). The Swidler Court reasoned that survival of the privilege is consistent with the privilege's policy, because [k]nowing that communications will remain confidential even after death encourages the client to communicate fully and frankly with counsel. . . . Clients may be concerned about reputation, 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. Id. at 407, 118 S.Ct. 2081. These considerations led the Swidler Court to hold that the privilege survives death. We find this reasoning to be persuasive. Therefore, we hold that any privileged communications between Frank Brewer and his attorneys remain privileged after his death.