Opinion ID: 2511836
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: First Factor Under KRPC 3.8(e)

Text: In her brief, McKinnon challenges the district judge's determination on the first KRPC 3.8(e) factorthat the attorney-client privilege did not apply because of the crime-fraud exception. In her view, there was nothing other than the former client's communication itself to demonstrate the client's intention to obtain legal advice to enable or assist in the planned perjury. This, she argues, is inadequate to qualify under K.S.A. 60-426(b)(1), which requires sufficient evidence, aside from the communication ... to warrant a finding that the legal service was sought or obtained in order to enable or aid the commission or planning of a crime. (Emphases added.) If, as a threshold matter, the attorney-client privilege applies, the three KRPC 3.8(e) factors cannot be met. We have already ruled that the district judge appropriately considered the three factors under KRPC 3.8(e), the controlling law for his evaluation of the State's motion for issuance of the subpoena, and McKinnon's later motion to quash. However, as discussed above, application of even a proper legal standard in arriving at what is acknowledged to be a discretionary decision can still be reversible error if an appellant demonstrates that the district judge's application or decision necessarily depended upon factual findings unsupported by substantial competent evidence. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990). The judge's determination on the first KRPC 3.8(e) factor necessarily depended on his factual finding that evidence beyond the former client's communication itself existed and that it supported an inference that the former client sought legal advice to further a crime or planned crime. This was error. On the undisputed record as developed so far and before us, there is no such evidence. McKinnon's summary of the former client's expression of an intention to commit perjury in Gonzalez' case is the only evidence, and merely reed-thin circumstantial evidence, that the former client sought legal services from the public defender's office in order to enable or aid the commission or planning of a crime or a tort. K.S.A. 60-426(b)(1). No other evidence of a desire to advance such facilitation exists. K.S.A. 60-426(b)(1) requires additional evidence before the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege will arise, given the threat of serious damage to the essential confidential relationship the privilege ordinarily protects. The attorney-client privilege protecting the communications of the former client to McKinnon or her subordinate was and is intact in this case, absent waiver or a contractual agreement not to claim the privilege. See K.S.A. 60-437(a), (b) (privilege may be waived by contract, previous disclosure). As noted, the State nevertheless argues that McKinnon cannot effectively invoke the privilege because the prosecution merely seeks the client's name or identity, which is not confidential. Although this rule of law may generally be correct, see In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 906 F.2d 1485, 1488 (10th Cir.1990) (client's identity is not normally protected by the attorney-client privilege); Arkansas City Bank v. McDowell, 7 Kan. App. 568, Syl. ¶ 2, 52 P. 56 (1898) (client identity not protected by attorney-client privilege), it is not correct in the specific circumstances before us here. McKinnon admits that she had no authorization from the former client to include the substance of the former client's statement in the motion to withdraw and that she did so in violation of the attorney ethics rules governing client confidentiality. See KRPC 1.6(a) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 468) (attorney shall not reveal client confidences); State v. Maxwell, 10 Kan.App.2d 62, 64, 691 P.2d 1316 (1984), rev. denied 236 Kan. 876 (1985) (attorney's unauthorized disclosure of client confidence not equivalent to client waiver). In this unusual situation, when the content of the confidential communication has already been revealed without the former client's permission, providing the name or identity of the former client would effectively disclose confidential client information; thus, in this case, the name or identity of the former client must be kept confidential to achieve the purpose of the privilege and the attorney ethics rules that provide its context. See United States v. BDO Seidman, 337 F.3d 802, 811 (7th Cir.2003) (limited exception to the general rule that client identity is not privileged applies where so much of an actual confidential communication has been disclosed already that merely identifying the client will effectively disclose that communication); Vingelli v. United States, Drug Enforcement Agency, 992 F.2d 449, 453 (2d Cir.1993) (substantial disclosure exception to general rule that client identity not privileged communication extends privilege to identity where the substance of a confidential communication has already been revealed, but not its source, [such that] identifying the client constitutes a prejudicial disclosure of a confidential communication). Because the continuing existence of the attorney-client privilege makes it impossible for the State to meet its burden to establish all of the three KRPC 3.8(e) factors, the contempt judgment and sanctions order must be vacated and this case remanded for further proceedings. Further discussion of the KRPC 3.8(e) factors is technically unnecessary to the inevitable outcome of this appeal. We nevertheless continue our analysis because this opinion enunciates a new rule that may need to be applied on remand for whatever usefulness it may have as the district judge evaluates the evidence already in the record.