Alcohol & Drugs: DUI, DWI client privilege??Hypothetical

[cautious101]

Ok here is the quetsion and facts of the hypothetical case.
1. I was accused of a crime
2.Told lawyer I was guilty of XYZ..
3.Never charged with crime xyz. but charged with other crime relating to xyz.
4.Got new lawyer.
5.Told him Nothing about crime XYZ.
Now during the trial for the other charge,Xyz will come up as a matter of time and place. note: old lawyer may be in courtroom at trial but not for me.
Questions:
1. Should I tell new lawyer about xyz.
2. Will old lawyer be obligated to tell anybody about the confession of xyz?
3.Since lawyer "one" knowes I will be lying about xyz. Is he obligated to do anything even though he dosent represent me.

 

[army judge]

What a client tells their lawyer is privileged communication. As such, it's protected, and so are you.

A lawyer can't repeat or be compelled to testify about anything you revealed to him or her.

However, if you confess to the commission of the crime, a lawyer can't defend you. A lawyer doesn't want to know if you're guilty. If you admit to guilt, he asks to be removed as your attorney.

If you admit to guilt, a lawyer is ethically bound to have himself removed. Your admission removes your cloak of innocence. It makes it impossible to defend you. However, that lawyer once removed from your defense still can't testify to your confesion. Your speech is protected from him repeating it.

 

[cautious101]

reply

Thanks for the reply: It was my understanding that in NY a lawyer is obligated to say something if the defendant is going to commit a crime or fraud. In this fictitious event the defendant will perjur himself by lying about crime XYZ.(a crime or fraud)In a seperate matter. The first Lawyer knows about the confession. And may witness him tell the lie to a jury. Is the client privilege still in effect? AT what point does the privilege not protect the defendant?

IE:
Confession= I stole The car I was driving- Not charged with GLA/Police will never know
Charge=DWI
In this case it is plausable that the question of car ownership is braught up.
Defendant says"Its my car "and can produce papers to back that up.
First lawyer knows defendant confessed and may be lying about that fact to a judge/jury.
Second lawyer has no clue about the car being stolen.
Does First lawyer have an obligation to come forth? Even though he no longer represents the defendant?