Not sure where I stand on this, but it’s obvious that the ethics behind attorney-client privilege occasionally conflicts with general morals:
The obligation to keep a client’s secrets is so important, they say, that it survives death and may not be violated even to cure a grave injustice — for example, the imprisonment for 26 years of another man, in Illinois, who was freed just last month.
Alright. Given. The attorney-client privilege is so fundamental to our legal system that waiving it has to be stigmatized. But there’s a weird logic here:
“I prefer to draw the line at the life-and-death situation,” said Monroe Freedman, who teaches legal ethics at Hofstra. “That situation is sufficiently rare that is doesn’t present a systemic threat. If that is extended to incarceration in general, it would end the sense of security clients have in speaking candidly with their lawyers.”
Incarceration is, in many ways, a life-and-death situation. And I don’t mean the violent nature of prison. When in prison, your entire livelihood and ability to actively pursue life is hindered to such a great extent that it should probably quality as a life-and-death situation. If a lawyer has privileged knowledge that can save a life, including from incarceration, exceptions should be allowed at the lawyer’s discretion.
Read the full article to get a sense of the issue with some perspective from the different sides.