Opinion ID: 1355868
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: scope of waiver of attorney-client privilege

Text: 2. Communications between attorney and client are excluded from evidence in this state on grounds of public policy. [25] The privilege belongs to the client and may be waived. [26] For example, we have held that an attorney is released from the obligations of secrecy when a client charges negligence, malpractice, or other professional misconduct in an action against the attorney [27] or a habeas petitioner claims that he or she was not informed about the consequences of a guilty plea. [28] As a result, an attorney who defends a suspect against criminal charges at trial may testify in a habeas corpus action concerning matters growing out of the attorney client relationship. [29] Although these previous cases involved only the testimony of trial counsel, we conclude that any waiver of the attorney-client privilege is not limited solely to the attorney's testimony, but extends also to documents in trial counsel's files. The purpose of the habeas corpus hearing is to determine the truth of the allegations that constitutional rights were violated. A petitioner for habeas corpus relief cannot allege that he was deprived of his constitutional rights and then invoke the shield of the attorney-client privilege to prevent an accurate determination of the merit of his claim. [30] Given the passage of time and the difficulty that counsel may have in remembering the reasons for a particular strategy at trial or on appeal, the state should have the right to review the attorney's files to refresh counsel's memory concerning disputed matters. [31] Although we have never expressly addressed the scope of the waiver of the attorney-client privilege when a habeas petitioner asserts an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we have previously limited any implied waiver of the attorney-client privilege. In Felts v. State, [32] the defendant argued that his attorney-client privilege was violated when the state impeached him concerning his testimony at a previous trial that he had lied to his attorney. We held that Felts had waived his privilege concerning his lie that someone gave him the murder weapon at the scene of the shooting by testifying without objection about the matter at his earlier trial, but limited the waiver to that statement. Similarly, when a habeas petitioner claimed that she was not informed of the consequences of her guilty plea, her attorney was permitted to testify concerning the information he gave her regarding the plea. [33] The rationale for these decisions is that the client waives the privilege to the extent necessary to allow the attorney to defend his or her own conduct against the charges of misconduct. [34] Other states addressing the waiver issue provide persuasive authority for a rule limiting waiver of any privilege to communications related to the specific claims on ineffectiveness. [35] When faced with the same issue, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the defendant waived the benefits of both the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine on matters relevant to the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. Despite the defendant's broad-ranging attack on counsel's representation at trial, that court concluded that the trial court exceeded its authority in directing the defendant to provide the state access to all files related to the case. [36] Based on this persuasive authority, our prior decisions, and the reason for finding an implied waiver, we reject the state's contention that the filing of an ineffectiveness claim is an absolute waiver that entitles it to the complete file of former trial and appellate counsel. Instead, we hold that a habeas petitioner who asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel makes a limited waiver of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine and the state is entitled only to counsel's documents and files relevant to the specific allegations of ineffectiveness. To implement this holding, we suggest that parties follow the procedure used in resolving similar discovery disputes in both civil and criminal cases. Initially, petitioner's current counsel determines the documents waived by the privilege. When the state disagrees, the parties should attempt to resolve their dispute; if they are unable to reach an agreement, the state may move for an in-camera inspection of the disputed parts of the files. At that point, the habeas court needs to review the files and order the disclosure of the parts that are relevant to the issues raised. [37]