1. Why does the attorney-client privilege exist? Isn't it, as Bentham claimed, simply a means by which lawyers can aid wrongdoers in concealing their wrongs?
2. A lawyer's daughter, who was just involved in a hit and run accident, asks the lawyer whether she should go to the police. Is this communication privileged?
3. After few hours after murdering someone, a client goes to his lawyer and tells him about the murder, in order to allow the lawyer to undertake his defense if he is arrested. During the meeting, the client's hands are shaking and have specks of blood on them. Are the facts that the client's hands are shaking and have blood on them privileged?
4. A defendant in a negligence case reveals to his lawyer that he was looking the other way when he hit the plaintiff. May the client claim the privilege when he is served with an interrogatory asking for the content of this conversation? May the client claim the privilege if the interrogatory asks whether he was looking the other way during the accident?
5. A tax lawyer's son gives her the information she needs to fill out his 1040EZ personal income tax form. Are these communications privileged?
6. A client visits a lawyer to discuss the incorporation of his business.
Present at the meeting is one of the client's employees, the client's daughter
(whom he is babysitting at the time), and the lawyer's secretary. Are the
7. Only a brief discussion of the problems of client identity and fee arrangements is in order. The attorney-client privilege appears to exist in order to encourage clients to speak freely with lawyers in order to obtain legal advice. But to get the client to speak freely with a lawyer, he must be there with the lawyer and usually must have paid the lawyer. Doesn't restricting the attorney-client privilege to communications only and not to communicative evidence that the attorney gets from the client (including who he is) discourage people from getting lawyers, particularly where they are trying to rectify their conduct?