California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Superior Court, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 323, 23 P.3d 563, 25 Cal.4th 703 (Cal. 2001):
Nor do the policies underlying the attorney-client privilege support the People's reading of the statutes. "Protecting the confidentiality of communications between attorney and client is fundamental to our legal system. The attorney-client privilege is a hallmark of our jurisprudence that furthers the public policy of ensuring `"the right of every person to freely and fully confer and confide in one having knowledge of the law, and skilled in its practice, in order that the former may have adequate advice and a proper defense." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People ex rel, Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1146, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 816, 980 P.2d 371 [the privilege is relevant in determining whether law firm should be disqualified].) "It is no mere peripheral evidentiary rule, but is held vital to the effective administration of justice. [Citation.]" (Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5
[107 Cal.Rptr.2d 333]
Cal.4th 363, 380, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d 496.) Permitting unfettered access to attorney-client communications, simply because there is no pending proceeding at which testimony can be compelled, would violate the policies supporting the privilege as well as the statutory and ethical obligations of attorneys to maintain client confidences.[107 Cal.Rptr.2d 333]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.