NCJ Number
109438
Journal
Emory Law Journal Volume: 36 Issue: 3 Dated: (Summer 1987) Pages: 793-801
Date Published
1987
Length
9 pages
Annotation
The application of the Money Laundering Act of 1986 and other governmental demands for disclosure by attorneys of information intended to remain confidential are threatening the adversarial nature of formal proceedings by denying individual clients the full and fair representation by an attorney.
Abstract
The mutual trust and confidentiality that are the cornerstone of attorney-client privilege have been seriously undermined by the use of the currency transaction reporting requirements found in the Money Laundering Act. Other disclosure requirements have had a chilling effect on the constitutional rights guaranteed by the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Nix v. Whiteside rejects the notions that a client's perjurious notions or intentions are somehow protected and supports the premise that truth in the factfinding process must be give the highest priority. Similarly, the attorney-client privilege is of limited value in cases where the attorney is subpoenaed. For many clients, however, the purported assurances provided by the attorney-client privilege often represent the only certainty in our highly unpredictable system of justice. Dilution of the privilege through various demands for disclosure threatens to remove these assurances. 25 footnotes.