Opinion ID: 1615257
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: admissibility of the testimony of fish

Text: Defendant next contends this court erred in refusing to hold as a matter of law that Fish was precluded by the attorneyclient privilege from being called to the stand and testifying as to the substance of the interview between defendant and him. Defendant argues that the crime or fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege is not applicable in the instant case. In criminal cases, the scope of the attorney-client privilege is governed by the terms of La.R.S. 15:475, [2] and before a client may claim the benefit of the privilege, the prerequisites set forth in that section must be met. State v. Green, supra . However, the attorney-client privilege is not without exception. Even where a claim of privilege is established pursuant to La.R.S. 15:475, the privilege does not generally exist: (2) Where the representation is sought to further criminal or fraudulent conduct either past, present or future. See e.g., In Re Grand Jury Proceeding, [663 F.2d 1057 (5th Cir.1981), vacated on other grounds, 680 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir.1982)]; In Re Grand Jury Proceedings in the Matter of Fine, 641 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. 1981); [ State v.] Johns, [209 La. 244, 24 So.2d 462 (1946)]; State v. Childers, 196 La. 554, 199 So. 640 (1940); Succession of Bonner, 192 La. 299, 187 So. 801 (1939). Here the emphasis should be placed on the client's actions, since it is the client's right which is prejudiced. McCormick on Evidence, § 89 (Cleary ed. 3rd). Unilateral acts by the attorney while perhaps constituting violations of criminal law and/or ethical canons generally cannot be held to abrogate the client's privilege. State v. Green, supra, at 1182. In order to understand the crime or fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, it must be remembered that the purpose of the privilege is to encourage the client to make full disclosure to his counsel so as to ensure competent and ethical representation. In Re Berkley & Co., Inc., 629 F.2d 548, 554 (8th Cir.1980). However, [t]he reasons for the privilege all cease to operate ... where the desired [legal] advice refers not to prior wrongdoing, but to future wrongdoing. In Re Murphy, 560 F.2d [326,] 337 [(8th Cir.1977)], quoting 8 Wigmore [on Evidence, § 2298] at 573 [(McNaughton rev.1961)] (emphasis in original). When the attorney-client relationship has been thus abused [, there is] no justification for sustaining the privilege in any context. Berkley & Co., supra, at 555. Hence, attorney-client communications `in pursuit of a criminal or fraudulent act yet to be performed [are] not privileged in any judicial proceeding.' Berkley & Co., supra, at 555, citing In re Sawyer's Petition, 229 F.2d 805, 808-09 (7th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Sawyer v. Barczak, 351 U.S. 966, 76 S.Ct. 1025, 100 L.Ed. 1486 (1956) (emphasis added by court in Berkley & Co. ) [3] Therefore, if the communications between Fish and defendant were made in pursuit of a criminal or fraudulent act yet to be performed (such as conspiracy to secrete relevant evidence), then those communications are not protected by the attorney-client privilege.