The bodies were discovered by chance five months later, in 1973. Garrow was tried in the summer of 1974, receiving a life sentence with a minimum term of 25 years after admitting to four murders.
Upon the revelation that they had withheld information, lawyers Frank H. Armani and Francis Belge faced criminal charges and the threat of disbarment.
Armani and Belge asserted they were bound by a duty of confidentiality, preventing them from disclosing "information that could incriminate a client".
The New York District Court accepted this argument, citing "the interest of justice". The court reasoned that effective legal counsel hinges on a confidential attorney-client relationship. Without full disclosure of case information, a lawyer can only offer a superficial defense. This inherently requires clients to share all details pertinent to the crime.
Armani and Belge were acquitted, prompting an appeal from the prosecutor.
The appellate court upheld the lower court's verdict but expressed reservations about the potentially boundless nature of attorney-client privilege. The court emphasized that lawyers, while defending clients, must also "adhere to basic human ethical standards".
This case has since become a seminal example in legal ethics courses. It underscores a lawyer's ethical obligation to maintain client confidentiality and has significantly influenced the evolution of ethical rules governing privacy.
In Common Law jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, attorney-client privilege is considered a foundational principle.
Accordingly, this privilege grants the client the right to refuse disclosure and to prevent any other person from revealing confidential communications exchanged between the client and their attorney.
The United States Supreme Court asserts that by guaranteeing confidentiality, this privilege encourages clients to engage in "full and frank" disclosure with their lawyers, thereby enabling attorneys to provide more impartial and effective advice.
The American Bar Association (ABA) states that attorney-client confidentiality is an essential condition for ensuring the right to a fair trial in all modern legal systems.
Consequently, in most instances, lawyers are prohibited from disclosing client information and are not obligated to report past criminal acts; all communications for legal advice remain confidential. However, this privilege is not an absolute shield.
In practice, lawyers may or are compelled to disclose information when: crimes are ongoing or imminent and pose a risk of serious harm; the client uses the lawyer to commit a criminal act; or reporting is mandated by specific laws, particularly in the financial sector.
In the United States, the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Zolin permits courts to review confidential documents if there are indications that a client used their lawyer to commit fraud. This principle is known as the "crime-fraud exception".
The "crime-fraud exception" can nullify the privilege when attorney-client communications are employed to facilitate a crime, misconduct, or fraud.
In Clark v. United States, the United States Supreme Court declared: "A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will not receive legal assistance. He must let the truth be told".
In England, this principle emerged early in R v. Cox and Railton (1884), where the court affirmed that confidentiality does not protect communications intended for fraudulent purposes. If an individual consults a lawyer to commit a crime, the exchanges between client and lawyer are not privileged, irrespective of whether the lawyer knowingly assisted in that objective.
Within European Union countries, confidentiality is prioritized during legal defense or consultation. However, when involved in financial transactions, lawyers may be required to report suspicious activities under anti-money laundering legislation.
In China, confidentiality is not as fully recognized as it is within Common Law systems. While lawyers maintain a duty of professional secrecy, they may be compelled to provide information, as the obligation to cooperate with investigative authorities is given higher priority.
Article 46 of China's Criminal Procedure Law stipulates: "Defense lawyers have the right to maintain confidentiality regarding facts and information related to clients that they acquire during their practice. However, if a defense lawyer learns during their practice that a client or any other individual is preparing or committing a crime that threatens national security, public safety, or poses a serious danger to the personal safety of others, they must promptly inform the judicial authorities".
Despite their differences, these legal systems share a common objective: to ensure that all individuals, including the accused, have the right to a fair defense. Within this framework, lawyers function not as judges but as guardians of the justice process.
The boundary lies not in a lawyer knowing the truth, but in whether they become complicit in a criminal act. If a lawyer crosses this line, for instance, by assisting in the destruction of evidence, they can be prosecuted as an accomplice, and their entire "privilege shield" immediately collapses.
By Tue Anh (Source: Justia Law, ABA, SPP)
