Opinion ID: 1792208
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Issue: Whether Donna Moore's Testimony Violated Attorney-Client Privilege?

Text: This issue concerns the admissibility of Moore's testimony about typing the jury list as requested by James and Johnny, and it concerns the admissibility of the list itself. Johnny objected to the admissibility of the testimony and the list on the ground that such evidence was privileged. In other words, admitting such evidence constituted a breach of the attorney-client privilege. Judge Carlson overruled the objection, and Johnny appealed. This Court's holding in Rogers v. State is dispositive of this issue: We are of the opinion the evidence was not privileged since it revealed nothing given in confidence, did not involve an attorney's advice emanating from an attorney/client relationship, and in fact, related to the preparation of two deeds, the description of which was related to the secretary of the attorney. We conclude that Randel v. Yates, 48 Miss. 685 (1873), is controlling. We there stated: As a general rule, every communication which the client makes to his legal adviser, for the purpose of professional advice or aid upon the subject of his rights or liabilities, is to be deemed confidential. But privileged communications do not extend to one acting as a mere scrivener, although of the legal profession... . An attorney who is requested to prepare a deed or mortgage, no legal advice being required, is not privileged, and may testify as to what comes to his knowledge in connection with such transaction. And when the terms of a contract have been agreed upon between the parties, and an attorney is afterwards employed as a scrivener merely to reduce the contract to writing, and no inquiry is made of him as to its legal effect, communications made to him, while thus engaged, will not be regarded as privileged... . (48 Miss. at 689). 266 So.2d 10 (Miss. 1972) (citations in original); accord MISS.R.EVID. 502 (Lawyer-Client Privilege). Applying relevant law to the facts, this Court finds no merit in Johnny's contention. The judge's decision is therefore affirmed.