‘full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and the administration of justice’ ” [quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981)]); MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 1.6 cmt. [2] (2008) (explaining that ethical duty of confidentiality encourages clients to speak “fully and frankly” with their lawyers, “even as to embarrassing or legally damaging subject matter”).
See MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 1.6 cmt. [2] (2008) (describing trust as “hallmark” of attorney-client relationship).
See Upjohn Co., 449 U.S. at 390–91 (explaining importance of attorney-client privilege in enabling attorney to know all facts that client knows in order to determine what is legally relevant [citing MODEL CODE PROF’L RESPONSIBILITY EC 4-1 (1983)]).
See, e.g., United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562–63 (1989) (describing purpose of crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege as preventing client from communicating with lawyer for purpose of obtaining advice for commission of future crime or fraud).
See MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 1.6(b)(1) (2008).
See MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 1.6(b)(2) & (3) (2008) (adopted in August 2003).
See Swidler & Berlin, 524 U.S. at 407 (explaining that clients concerned about reputation, civil liability, or possible harm to friends or family are more willing to be frank with their attorneys because of the attorney-client privilege).
See id. at 410 (“It has been generally, if not universally, accepted… that the attorney-client privilege survives the death of the client”).
See MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 1.6 cmt. [2] (2008) (describing duty of confidentiality as contributing “to the trust that is the hallmark of the client-lawyer relationship”).
See, e.g., MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 1.7 (governing concurrent conflicts of interest) & 1.9 (governing successive conflicts of interest).
See Swidler & Berlin, 524 U.S. at 408 (recognizing potential loss of evidence due to privilege, but justifying the loss by explaining that without privilege, “the client may not have made such communications in the first place” so the “loss of evidence is more apparent than real”).
See generally Laura Rothstein, Law Students and Lawyers with Mental Health and Substance Abuse Problems: Protecting the Public and Individual, 69 U. PITT. L. REV. 531 (2008) (explaining that rates of depression and substance abuse are much higher than those of general population); Patrick J. Schiltz, On Being a Happy, Healthy, and Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, and Unethical Profession, 52 VAND. L. REV. 871 (1999) (discussing high rate of depression, mental health issues, and substance abuse within legal profession).
See Maurice Possley, Inmate’s Freedom May Hinge on Secret Kept for 26 Years, CHI. TRIB., Jan. 19, 2008.
