Question...

As an attorney, that was the one thing I kept thinking during all of Panero's statements on film. Especially during the intercutting of Panero's version of the discussion leading up to the plea and Jesse's version. My hunch is Jesse must have signed a release allowing his former attorney to speak freely on film. You're right in your thinking, the attorney-client privilege extends well past the litigation at hand (1988-89). In fact, it goes on beyond the death of the client. There are exceptions - like if a lawyer sues a client (i.e., non-payment of a fee) or if a client waives the right. In this case, Jesse must have waived his right to attorney-client privilege. Now why would he do that? Jesse must have really wanted the film to be made. He probably felt it would help clear his name or aid in his appeal. Or he might have been looking for the only way he could make money (beyond the $250K his dad allocated to him through the life insurance policy). The director or producers really wanted the defense attorney to be able to participate and convinced Jesse to waive his attorney-client privilege. I think, under-the-table, they told Jesse that they would portray Panero as less credible through clever editing, showing his schlocky office, etc. But the only way Panero could get away with saying what he did (whether true or not) and still keep his law license and avoid being sued by Jesse would be to have had that release. So, yes, it would, absent a release, violate attorney-client privilege. However, a client always has the right to waive that privilege and a lawyer has the right to rely upon that waiver/release.