MovieChat Forums > The Practice (1997) Discussion > Lawyer-Client Privilege: What bollocks!

Lawyer-Client Privilege: What bollocks!

posted 9 years ago by lyeseng
1 reply | jump to latest

It is very frustrating to see that this so called privilege was overplayed. The Massachusetts' Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information had several exceptions to the rule, permitting attorneys to reveal communication between them and their clients.

For example, in Episode 1, S7, Jimmy Berluti could have revealed, at the very least, that Bernice White was not the kidnapper as she would have faced incarceration for a crime which she did not commit, (Rule 1.6b [1]) . Moreover, under 1.6b (3) he could have revealed the communication, between him and his client, in the interests of the kidnapped child and her mother. The court should have ordered him, since he failed to do so.

They were several other instances where this lawyer-client privilege issue was not accurately portrayed. While I appreciate the need for drama in such shows, it would have been appreciated to have accurate information, as far as the law was concerned.

[–] bobby_allen 9 years ago

It would have been great had they done it differently in the following episode. Jamie (Havard grad), went to Helen, the ADA, and revealed the communication between the kidnapper and her firm, thus securing justice. She did not have to be apologetic to Eugene because she had acted within the rules.

However, portrayal of Jimmy the Grnt was spot on. He was quick to break lawyer-client privilege in that case regarding the boy's insurance claim and his aneurysm. It was debatable if there was imminent threat to the boy's life but if he deemed so, he could have subsequently argued, in his disbarment hearing, the exception to the rule, 1.6b (1), to prevent reasonably certain death, but did not do so.