Opinion ID: 2585993
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: In camera Review of Privileged Documents

Text: The attorney-client privilege is not absolute. There are recognized exceptions to the privilege, and the privilege may be waived in certain circumstances. But the exceptions are simply thatexceptions. The burden of establishing a waiver or an exception lies with the party seeking to overcome the privilege. Wesp v. Everson, 33 P.3d 191, 198 (Colo.2001). In situations where it is unclear whether the privilege has actually been waived or an exception applies, a trial court may order in camera review to assess the nature of the privileged documents. See, e.g., Caldwell v. Dist. Court, 644 P.2d 26, 33 (Colo.1982). A trial court should be hesitant to review the contents of an attorney's case file, however, because of the importance of the privilege involved. in camera disclosure to the court is still a form of disclosure. The court's review could have a chilling effect on attorneys and their clients, especially if in camera review occurred frequently or was easily obtained. Madera, 112 P.3d at 691. This Court recently considered the circumstances under which a trial court is permitted to order counsel for a criminal defendant to produce his file for in camera review. In People v. Madera , we reviewed a trial court order requiring defendant Madera's former criminal defense counsel to produce his entire file for the trial court's in camera review. Id. at 689. We ultimately concluded that in camera review of the attorney's file was premature in that case. Id. at 692. In reaching our conclusion, we noted that [t]he decision of a trial court to conduct an in camera review of a defense counsel's case file has serious implications and should be undertaken only in the clearest of cases, when the information sought to be discovered is well defined and all other reasonable means of discovering the information have been exhausted. Id. at 689. Accordingly, we articulated a six-part test, set forth above, which governs a trial court's in camera review of an attorney's file. Id. at 691. At issue in this case is the court's application of the fifth Madera factornamely, whether the attorney-client privilege was waived by Gomez when she entered into the plea agreement and promised, as part of that agreement, to provide truthful testimony.