How It Is Supposed To Work

Not only are attorneys not supposed to commit crimes, which they clearly did in my case, but they are not supposed to even discuss anything with their client which might lead to a crime. Nor are the supposed to conceal information from the court about a past crime.  

This is what is supposed to happen. But it doesn't.

The attorney-client privilege protects most communications between clients and their lawyers. But, according to the crime-fraud exception to the privilege, a client's communication to her attorney isn't privileged if she made it with the intention of committing or covering up a crime or fraud.

Because the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client, the client's intent determines whether the exception applies. Most courts will apply the exception even if the attorney had no knowledge of, and didn't participate in, the actual crime or fraud.

The crime-fraud exception applies if:

• the client was in the process of committing or intended to commit a crime or fraudulent act, and
• the client communicated with the lawyer with intent to further the crime or fraud, or to cover it up.

Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few)

• suborning perjury" (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
• destroying or concealing evidence
• witness tampering, and
• concealing income or assets