of privilege in confined to such intended acts in violation of the law as are

Of privilege in confined to such intended acts in

This preview shows page 58 - 60 out of 95 pages.

of privilege in confined to such intended acts in violation of the law as are mala in se, as distinguished from those which are merely mala prohibita. § 395. Communication in contemplation of crime. Communications between attorney and client having to do with the client's contemplated criminal acts, or in aid or furtherance thereof, are not covered by the cloak of privilege ordinarily existing in reference to communications between attorney and client. But, the mere charge of illegality, not supported by evidence, will not defeat the privilege; there must be at least prima facie evidence that the illegality has some foundation in fact. Underhill also states:
Image of page 58
There are many other cases to the same effect, for the rule is prostitution of the honorable relation of attorney and client will not be permitted under the guise of privilege, and every communication made to an attorney by a client for a criminal purpose is a conspiracy or attempt at a conspiracy which is not only lawful to divulge, but which the attorney under certain circumstances may be bound to disclose at once in the interest of justice. In accordance with this rule, where a forged will or other false instrument has come into possession of an attorney through the instrumentality of the accused, with the hope and expectation that the attorney would take some action in reference thereto, and the attorney does act, in ignorance of the true character of the instrument, there is no privilege, inasmuch as full confidence has been withheld. The attorney is then compelled to produce a forged writing against the client. The fact that the attorney is not cognizant of the criminal or wrongful purpose, or, knowing it, attempts to dissuade his client, is immaterial. The attorney's ignorance of his client's intentions deprives the information of a professional character as full confidence has been withheld. (H.C. Underhill, A Treatise on the Law of Criminal Case Evidence, vol. 2, Fifth ed. (1956), Sec. 332, pp. 836- 837; emphasis mine). 125 AMERICAN LAW REPORTS ANNOTATED, 516-519, summarizes the rationale of the rule excepting communications with respect to contemplated criminal or fraudulent acts, thus: c. Rationale of rule excepting communications with respect to contemplated criminal or fraudulent act. Various reasons have been announced as being the foundation for the holdings that communications with respect to contemplated criminal or fraudulent acts are not privileged. The reason perhaps most frequently advanced is that in such cases there is no professional employment, properly speaking. Standard F. Ins. Co v. Smithhart (1919) 183 Ky 679, 211 SW. 441, 5 ALR 972; Cummings v. Com. (1927) 221 Ky 301, 298 SW 943; Strong v. Abner (1937) 268 Ky 502, 105 SW(2d) 599; People v. Van Alstine (1885) 57 Mich 69, 23 NW 594; Hamil & Co. v. England (1892) 50 Mo App 338; Carney v. United R. Co. (1920) 205 Mo App 495, 226 SW 308; Matthews v. Hoagland (1891) 48 NJ Eq 455, 21 A 1054; Covency v.
Image of page 59
Image of page 60

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 95 pages?

  • Summer '17
  • Dean Almirante

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture