Court Opinion

ID: 9469350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:38:06.468937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:20.594453
License: Public Domain

POLITZ, Circuit Judge, with whom TATE and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges,
join, dissenting:
I dissent. Despite the appearance of limited application, today’s decision begins the process of the demise of the attorney-client privilege in this circuit.
The majority notes that it assumes, for purposes of the opinion, that the anonymous fee payor was Pavlick’s client. I find that assumption unnecessary; the factual finding by the district court, albeit based on meager evidence, is not clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).1 The en banc court then *1032proceeds to require the attorney to disclose the identity of his client despite the fact that this identification “would yield substantially probative links in an existing chain of inculpatory events or transactions.” In re Grand Jury Proceedings v. Jones, 517 F.2d 666, 674 (5th Cir. 1975). I find this invasion, indeed destruction, of the attorney-client privilege, unfortunate, unwarranted, and unwise.
One justifiably may be astounded that this case precipitates the need for an apologia of the attorney-client privilege. At this late date, one would expect merely a faint and distant echo of battles long since fought. But that is not the case; the privilege itself is brought to center stage, under the appealing guise of curtailing a peripheral abuse.
“The purpose of the privilege is to encourage clients to make full disclosure to their attorneys,” the Supreme Court observed in Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 1577, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976), further noting that “[a]s a practical matter, if the client knows that damaging information could more readily be obtained from the attorney following disclosure than from himself in the absence of disclosure, the client would be reluctant to confide in his lawyer and it would be difficult to obtain fully informed legal advice.” Id.
Because disclosure of a client’s identity generally does not incriminate the client, an attorney usually may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge that information. However, if such disclosure would incriminate the client, the privilege may apply. As we recognized in Jones, “Under some circumstances, an attorney must conceal even the identity of a client, not merely his communications, from inquiry.” 517 F.2d at 671.
The identity of Pavlick’s client, in the context of the factual situation before us, is precisely the type of information the privilege is designed to shield. The person who paid the attorney’s fees and bail bond costs for the three arrestees, Willis, Love and Peiser, according to the trial judge, consulted Pavlick concerning his own culpability in the criminal scheme. The government is pursuing the identity of the client/benefactor, candidly informing the court that the identification might lead to his indictment. In essence, the government seeks to base a material and significant part of a criminal charge on information involuntarily furnished by the person’s attorney. In my judgment, in the case before us, compelling disclosure of this information constitutes an error of the first magnitude.
The majority would take this case out of the Jones exception by a restatement of the Jones holding to which I cannot subscribe. The majority announces that the identity of a client is only privileged, under Jones, when “disclosure of the client’s identity by *1033his attorney would have supplied the last link in an existing chain of incriminating evidence likely to lead to the client’s indictment.” Since, according to the majority, the identity of Pavlick’s client is not the “last link,” it is not protected. Jones articulated no such standard. In Jones, the government’s position on whether the disclosure would lead to an indictment was just as equivocal as the government’s position in the case at bar. The government, in Jones, asserted: “It is conceivable that there may be income tax violations.” 517 F.2d at 673. The Jones court, in declining to order disclosure, stated the rule as follows: the identity of a client “should also be protected when so much of the substance of the communications is already in the government’s possession that additional disclosures would yield substantially probative links in an existing chain of inculpatory events or transactions.” 517 F.2d at 674. This markedly varies from the standard which the majority today applies to Pav-lick’s client. The government in the case at bar acknowledged exactly what the government in Jones acknowledged — that the determination of the identity of the unknown person might lead to his or her indictment. That constituted a sufficient showing in Jones; it should suffice here.
The next consideration is whether the identity of Pavlick’s client should be divulged under the rationale of the crime or fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. In In Re Grand Jury Proceedings in Matter of Fine, 641 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. 1981) we observed that the purpose of the attorney-client privilege “is not served if the professional relationship is secured to further present or intended illegal activity.. .. ” Id. at 203 (emphasis in original). Recognizing dicta in Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 15, 53 S.Ct. 465, 469, 77 L.Ed. 993 (1933), and citing United States v. Hodge & Zweig, 548 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1977), we held “[i]f there is a prima facie showing that the professional relationship was intended to further a criminal enterprise, the privilege does not exist.” Id.
The en banc court today concludes that this prima facie showing was made, a conclusion based on evidence that someone assured one or more of the three arrestees that if they were apprehended they would be “taken care of.” The majority finds that when the anonymous client consulted Pav-lick he did so in acquittance of that promise. The furnishing of bail costs and attorney’s fees is thus viewed as “an act done in furtherance of the illegal scheme itself.” I cannot concur in that assessment. I do not perceive the undisclosed client’s retention of Pavlick, to represent himself and the three smugglers, as an action “to further present or intended illegal activity.” When Pavlick was first approached, the marihuana had been seized and the three defendants were in jail. Pavlick was retained to represent the three defendants and the unidentified client for past criminal acts. The majority concludes that the very act of contacting Pavlick, because of the prior assurance, was an unprotected act because it ostensibly furthered present or intended illegal activity. I find this extension of the crime or fraud exception ill-advised. I view the consulting of Pavlick as reflecting the undisclosed client’s concern about detection for past offenses and as an attempt to secure timely assistance in the event of his apprehension. The record is devoid of proof that Pavlick had prior knowledge of the bail/fee assurance or that the identity of the undisclosed client was sought in connection with any illegal activity occurring after Pavlick was consulted. Therefore, I do not believe the rule announced in Fine and Hodge & Zweig applies. Today the en banc court adopts an entirely new, unprecedented rule.
The new rule does indeed, as the concurring opinion suggests, paint with a broad brush, outstripping its seeming limited application. The words used suggest that the crime or fraud exception will obviate the privilege only as to the fee payor’s identity, “where the government makes a prima fa-cie showing that an agreement to furnish legal assistance was part of a conspiracy.” The words belie the rationale. If the crime or fraud exception is applicable, more than client identity is stripped of the privilege— confidences and secrets are also bared. If *1034in the situation posited by the majority, the attorney can be forced to disclose the identity of the client-payor, what prevents the involuntary disclosure of (1) what the client said, and (2) any other matters coming to the attention of the attorney during the course of representation? The crime or fraud release is not a partial dissolution of the privilege; if the exception applies, the privilege, in all respects, vanishes.
■Moreover, the rule adopted by the court today will yield anomalous results. Under our ruling, client X, a member of a drug smuggling conspiracy, may, prior to indictment or arrest, seek legal advice from an attorney about his participation in the criminal operation. If his attorney is subsequently interviewed by the authorities, or brought before a grand jury, the attorney may decline to divulge the name of his client, citing Jones and arguing that disclosure of the name would provide a substantially probative link in an existing chain of inculpatory events. Presumptively, the claim of privilege would be honored. However, if X conspires with Y to smuggle drugs and offers to pay attorney fees in the event of an arrest, the attorney consulted by X will be required to disclose at least the identity of X. He will likely also be required to disclose the identity of Y and the conversation with X when the attorney was retained to represent X and Y. I can see no rational basis for such a dramatic difference in the treatment of X in these two situations. In both instances he was involved in drug conspiracies. The court today offers no persuasive predicate for meaningfully distinguishing these two criminal situations. The signs, then, are clear. Soon there will be no distinction. Soon there will be no attorney-client privilege recognized.
The drug traffic is abhorrent. This cancer on our social fabric must be eradicated. The desire to pursue vigorously all suspected participants is understandable and laudatory. Many things may be sacrificed in this effort, but the attorney-client privilege is not, to me, a forfeitable item. This privilege is of such value to our civilized society and system of criminal justice that I must regretfully dissent from today’s ruling, and its natural consequence — defense counsel becoming the government’s unwilling instrument for the investigation and prosecution of clients for past criminal acts. I am convinced that society’s momentary gain from this development will be far outdistanced by its ultimate loss.

. As reflected in his concurrence, Judge Rubin, joined by Judge Clark, concludes that no attorney-client privilege exists between the anonymous fee payor and Pavlick. The government has consistently maintained this position. I am convinced beyond peradventure that the privilege was extant. In In re Grand Jury Proceedings v. Jones we listed the basic elements necessary to establish the privilege:
(1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is [the] member of a bar of a court, or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client.
517 F.2d at 670. See also United States v. Kelly, 569 F.2d 928, 938 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 439 U.S. 829, 99 S.Ct. 105, 58 L.Ed.2d 123 (1978).
In the case at bar, the government challenges the existence of the attorney-client relationship because no proof was offered of the advice requested or legal services performed. Although the record before us leaves a great deal to be desired, it contains adequate proof upon which the district judge properly could base the finding that the privilege came into being.
Pavlick responded to the district court’s question — “You were retained by somebody who told you to represent these people?” — by saying “And him and someone who was worried about his own culpability.” “And him” logically refers to the client/benefactor. The district court’s finding that Mr. Anonymous sought out the legal assistance of Pavlick for himself (or herself) and the trio in jail in New Orleans, passes muster.
The government’s contention that the privilege does not attach because there is no evidence in' the record that any services were actually performed for the fee payor does not survive close scrutiny. It should be beyond question that once the benefactor told Pavlick about his legal problem, including real or ex*1032pected criminal exposure, the privilege came into being. It is imperative that the privilege attach soon after a prospective client has contacted an attorney, and certainly not later than the point at which the person reveals facts tending to establish a criminal exposure. The existence of the privilege cannot be limited to instances in which the attorney-client relationship comes to full fruition by the payment of legal fees and the performance of legal services. If that were required, a person would be compelled to retain the first attorney consulted in order to preserve the privilege. Such a requirement would ignore the reality that during early consultations the lawyer, the client or both may choose not to formalize or continue their relationship. The client may- not be able to pay the fee; the attorney may discover some fact which either obliges or persuades him not to accept employment; there may be a personality conflict, or either, for no articulable reason, may decide against formalizing the relationship. As one commentator noted:
At the inception of the contacts between the layman and the lawyer it is essential that the laymen feel free of danger in stating the facts of the case to the lawyer whom he consults. Even though the lawyer rejects the case and the relation of attorney and client never arose, the usual duties as to privileged communications and conflicting interests should apply. The general principle of law should be, each duty incident to the attorney-client relationship begins as early as is helpful to the effective working of the relationship.
See L. Patterson & E. Cheatham, The Profession of Law at 246 (citing Taylor v. Sheldon, 172 Ohio St. 118, 173 N.E.2d 892 (1961)). See generally, American Bar Association Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 4, EC 4-1, DR 4-101.