For a lawyer to best represent and advise clients, they must always know the absolute truth. Because sometimes the truth can be incriminating or otherwise personal, a client must always know that anything they disclose will be kept completely confidential. If a client cannot be assured that this information will be kept confidential, they will be afraid to be completely open and honest with their lawyers. "Because individuals need the help of a lawyer in navigating the complicated legal system, confidentiality is essential to ensure the full and unreserved communication that must precede the giving of legal advice" (2). This is the cornerstone of the attorney-client privilege. There is no way that a lawyer can optimally defend a client if they are not sure that they client is telling them the whole truth. Without guaranteed confidentiality, a client would have no reason to be completely honest (3).

In a court case, one of the rules of this attorney-client privilege is that a lawyer cannot willingly put their client on the stand if they know that they will perjure themselves (meaning that they would lie on the stand to defend themselves). Because of this, the lawyer also must know the full truth, as not to put a client in that situation, causing them to break the law. However, if a client is put on the stand and lies under oath, it is the attorney's duty to disclose the truth (4). Also, if the client is put on the stand, and is forced to admit a crime, then they are being convicted based on their own word, "Defendants need to be frank with their lawyers so even the guilty can have a fair trial based on evidence, not self-incrimination" (5).

The lawyer-client privilege is essential because is keeps a balance between protecting a client and protecting society. For example, the ABA (American Bar Association) recently changed its Model Rules to allow a lawyer to betray client confidences when necessary to prevent actions that would likely result in "death or substantial bodily harm" (6). According to the ABA's president, Robert Hirshon, "There is a tension between a lawyer as a strong adversary for his or her client, and the other side, which is making sure that the right thing gets done" (7). Because of this recent change of policy, this can ensure that the attorney-client privilege is being used in the best interest of a client and society as a whole.

There are also other exemptions from the attorney-client privilege that are to protect and benefit society. Much like the new rules set by the ABA, there are standing rules that say that communication about future crimes or frauds are not protected under attorney-client privilege and that those sort of communications can be disclosed to outside parties without the consent of the client (8).

Another exemption is after death. For example, if a client confesses to a murder before he or she dies, the lawyer may breach the privilege if (and only if) another person is put on trial for the crime (9). This is to protect the innocent, while also not harming the clients themselves.

Another important exemption is allowed in 80% of US States, and that is that a lawyer may disclose a client confidence to prevent financial harm or loss to others. In some states, lawyers are required to report certain kinds of financial crimes (10).

The attorney-client privilege is essential to the judicial system of America. It ultimately encourages ethical behavior. When clients are fully honest to their lawyer and disclose all important information, lawyers can counsel them if what they have done, or what they propose to do, is criminal or unethical. If clients must fear that their confidences will be revealed to other people, they will be much less likely to be truthful with their lawyer and could lead to much more severe crimes or problems.

Notes:

1) Hirshon, Robert E., President American Bar Association. Letter to the Bureau of Prisons. 28 Dec. 2001. <http://www.abanet.org/leadership/terrorism.html>

2) Layton, David. "Ethics, Confidentiality And Privilege: Comment on Smith v. Jones. Defence Brief. 9 April 1999: 2. 13 May 2002. <www.crimlaw.org/defbrief48.html>

3) Layton, David. "Ethics, Confidentiality And Privilege: Comment on Smith v. Jones. Defence Brief. 9 April 1999: 2. 13 May 2002. <www.crimlaw.org/defbrief48.html>

4) Marquand, Robert. "Justices Take Up Limits of Privilege." The Christian Science Monitor. 9 June 1998: 3. 13 May 2002. <http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/06/09/fp1s3-csm.html>.

5) Clarence. "Shaking up the rules on keeping secrets." Jewish World Review. 20 Aug. 2001: 2. 12 May 2002. <http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0801/page082001.asp>

6) Clarence. "Shaking up the rules on keeping secrets." Jewish World Review. 20 Aug. 2001: 2. 12 May 2002. <http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0801/page082001.asp>

7) Girion, Lisa. "Calls for Lawyers to Blow the Whistle." Los Angeles Times. 24 March 2002: 2. 14 May 2002. <http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-000021143mar24.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dpe%2Dbusiness>

8) Gede, Tom, Ken Scheidegger, and Otis William. Monitoring Attorney-Client Communications of Designated Federal Prisoners. Sacramento, CA: The Federalist Society, 2001. <http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/ Terrorism/attorneyclient.htm>

9) Layton, David. "Ethics, Confidentiality And Privilege: Comment on Smith v. Jones. Defence Brief. 9 April 1999: 2. 13 May 2002. <www.crimlaw.org/defbrief48.html>

10) Coulter, Ann. "Ashcroft Got it Just Right." The National Conservative Weekly. 12 Nov. 2001. 14 May 2002. < http://www.humanevents.org/articles/11-19-01/coulter.html>