A frequent topic in the media these days is the attorney-client privilege. This is probably a consequence of the volume of high-profile legal controversies now making headlines and the comings and goings of the legions of lawyers involved in these controversies.

But what is the attorney-client privilege? Well, it’s a legal doctrine founded on considerations of public policy intended to allow people in need of legal advice to seek that advice without fear that talking to a lawyer will jeopardize their position. Here’s how the Colorado statute governing the attorney-client privilege describes the doctrine: “An attorney shall not be examined without the consent of his client as to any communication made by the client to him or his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment.”

In other words, a lawyer engaged to provide legal advice cannot be compelled to disclose communications with a client generated during the course of his or her representation of the client.

As this statement of the doctrine indicates, the client, and not the lawyer, owns the attorney-client privilege and only the client can waive the privilege. However, as you might expect (since we’re talking law here), there are moving parts to the doctrine that can generate disputes.

One important exception to the attorney-client privilege is that communications between a client and a lawyer wherein the client is seeking advice intended to assist in the furtherance of a crime or an act of fraud will not be covered by the privilege. The client therefore can’t ask a lawyer’s advice as to the best way to rob a bank.

Another exception comes into play when the client has died and there is a fight over distribution of the client’s estate. There, the lawyer can testify concerning communications with the client as to the client’s asset disposition intentions. The idea behind this exception is that it can help to cause the dead client’s wishes to be carried out.

A common area of dispute comes into play if the client has brought a third party along to a meeting with the lawyer or has told a third party what the lawyer said during a meeting. This gives rise to an argument that the client has waived the attorney-client privilege, in which event the lawyer can be compelled to disclose communications with the client.

Another interesting aspect of the attorney-client privilege comes into play when it’s the lawyer, in furtherance of his or her own interests, who wants client communications with the lawyer to be disclosed. As courts have consistently said, the attorney-client privilege is intended to protect clients and not lawyers. Therefore, a lawyer who wants disclosure of communications between the client

JIM FLYNN

and the lawyer cannot compel or provide such disclosure unless the client waives the privilege and consents to the disclosure.

In a similar vein, as a matter of legal ethics, a lawyer cannot disclose, and must protect, confidential information coming from a client. In furtherance of fair play, however, if the client is suing the lawyer for malpractice or breach of some other duty, the lawyer can disclose communications with the client in defense of the claim the client has asserted against the lawyer.

The law recognizes other evidentiary privileges in addition to the attorney-client privilege. On the list here are communications between spouses and between partners to a civil union; communications with a member of the clergy while performing official functions; communications between a physician and a patient; communications between a mental health care professional and a patient; and communications with a mediator.

An important lesson to be learned here is that, in most circumstances, you should leave family and friends at home when meeting with a lawyer. And be careful what you say on social media. Otherwise, you might end up waiving the attorney-client privilege.