Privacy and a duty to warn

JJohn171

JJohn171

New Member
Jurisdiction
US Federal Law
Does the Tarasoff law and its implication of a duty to warn for therapists have any equal or similar law when it comes to lawyer client privilege?
I guess what I'm asking is can a lawyer break privilege if they know of a crime that may be committed in the future by their client?
 
I'm aware of the case of Griswold as well as cases that came after such as Roe, Lawrence, and Eisenstadt , but my question is, what are the elements that fall under marriage privacy?
And if something is told to your spouse during marriage, it is covered under spousal privilege, But why is it that after a divorce your spouse can then testify to those same conversations? Is that not still held as privilege even though the marriage is now dissolved?
 
 
JJohn171 said:
Does the Tarasoff law and its implication of a duty to warn for therapists have any equal or similar law when it comes to lawyer client privilege?
I guess what I'm asking is can a lawyer break privilege if they know of a crime that may be committed in the future by their client?
Click to expand...

It's important to understand that the attorney client privilege and the lawyer's duty of confidentiality are two different things. The former is a rule of evidence that specifies when a client's communication may be admissible in a trial or hearing; the latter is a broader rule that addresses any disclosure of confidential client communications by the lawyer. The attorney client privilege depends on the rules of evidence that apply to the particular proceeding involved. The duty of confidentiality is imposed on lawyers by their state's rules of professional conduct. As a result, both the privilege and the duty of confidentiality depend on the applicable state laws (or, in the case of litigation in federal court, the federal rule for attorney client privilege applies).

Many states use the American Bar Association (ABA) model rules of professional conduct as the basis for their rules of conduct. ABA model rule 1.6 addresses the duty of confidentiality. Army Judge linked you the comments to this rule that more fully explains it. You will see that it authorizes the lawyer to disclose confidential information in several situations, including situations in which it is necessary to prevent death or substantial bodily harm as well as "to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer's services."
 
JJohn171 said:
Thank you for the resources. Anything on the elements of marriage privacy and spousal privilege?
Click to expand...

The marital privilege is also a rule of evidence. It protects the communications made between the spouses from being disclosed in a trial or hearing, but the federal rule and the rules for each state on exactly when the privilege applies and who make invoke the privilege vary, so it is necessary to know the court in which the trial or hearing would be held.
 
In our ever changing society, where we constantly post where we are, what we are doing, and what we think on social media, our right to privacy is being exploited and our freedom of speech is being tested .We now have laws for hate crimes and online bullying which are consequences for some of the speech posted on social media. And now we have Justice Thomas stating we need to revisit Sullivan because it isn't in the spirit of the first amendment. Our current laws and rulings do make it harder for public officials to win libel suits, but do we really want to go back down that road where libel suits can be used as ploys to minimize coverage or to disrupt a movement? Are our current libel laws a misinterpretation of the law?
 
Tax Counsel said:
The marital privilege is also a rule of evidence. It protects the communications made between the spouses from being disclosed in a trial or hearing, but the federal rule and the rules for each state on exactly when the privilege applies and who make invoke the privilege vary, so it is necessary to know the court in which the trial or hearing would be held.
Click to expand...


Thank you very much for the input. I appreciate it.
 
JJohn171 said:
Does the Tarasoff law and its implication of a duty to warn for therapists have any equal or similar law when it comes to lawyer client privilege?
Click to expand...

Let's start with the fact that there's no such thing as "the Tarasoff law." Also, you tagged your post as relating to "US Federal Law," but Tarsoff v. Regents of the University of California was a case decided in 1976 by the California Supreme Court (17 Cal. 3d. 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14). Accordingly, the case has no application outside California, unless some other jurisdiction's courts think it is persuasive.

With that said, it's not unreasonable to think that Tarasoff could apply in a lawyer-client situation, but determining whether Tarasoff has been applied outside of the psychotherapist-patient context is something that would require case research. However, Tarasoff has nothing to do with the attorney-client privilege, which is a rule of evidence.

JJohn171 said:
I'm aware of the case of Griswold as well as cases that came after such as Roe, Lawrence, and Eisenstadt , but my question is, what are the elements that fall under marriage privacy?
Click to expand...

Huh? The cases you've referred to have nothing to do with the issue that was the subject of Tarasoff.

JJohn171 said:
And if something is told to your spouse during marriage, it is covered under spousal privilege, But why is it that after a divorce your spouse can then testify to those same conversations?
Click to expand...

That a divorce has occurred has no impact on the extent to which a particular statement may be subject to exclusion because of the marital privilege. In addressing any issue of privilege, it is essential to know the relevant facts.

JJohn171 said:
Anything on the elements of marriage privacy and spousal privilege?
Click to expand...

Under what state's laws? Each state has its own rules of evidence, as does the federal system. In California, the privilege for confidential marital communications is codified in section 980, et seq. of the Evidence Code.
 
JJohn171 said:
our right to privacy is being exploited and our freedom of speech is being tested .
Click to expand...

By whom? How so?

JJohn171 said:
now we have Justice Thomas stating we need to revisit Sullivan because it isn't in the spirit of the first amendment. . . . do we really want to go back down that road where libel suits can be used as ploys to minimize coverage or to disrupt a movement?
Click to expand...

I can't see I give a rip whether the "constitutional malice" standard remains in place.

JJohn171 said:
Are our current libel laws a misinterpretation of the law?
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense. "Our current laws" are "the law."
 
JJohn171 said:
In our ever changing society, where we constantly post where we are, what we are doing, and what we think on social media, our right to privacy is being exploited and our freedom of speech is being tested .
Click to expand...

No one is required to post each and every aspect of the activities in which they engage.

If you CHOOSE to reveal the private details of your life, that is on you.

As far as the mythical "right to privacy", that's an urban legend.

The Constitution does not specifically grant one a right to privacy.

Certain Supreme Court decisions have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment.

As a constitutionalist, I would argue to the contrary.

That said, don't expect the government to protect your privacy.

To paraphrase a famous 'mythical firefighting bear', "Only you can protect your privacy."

Courts and some legislation seems to have "bootstrapped" and crafted a belief about privacy.

The Fifth Amendment protects one against self-incrimination, which some say in turn guards personal information.

The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in our Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."
 
zddoodah said:
By whom? How so?



I can't see I give a rip whether the "constitutional malice" standard remains in place.



That doesn't make any sense. "Our current laws" are "the law."
Click to expand...

We are exploiting ourselves, through our own social presence and engagement.Then you have the patriot act which had many controversial parts surrounding privacy and our 4th amendment rights.

As for our current laws, just because they are current does not mean they accurately reflect the times or the spirit of the laws intended purpose.

Does that make more sense?
 
army judge said:
No one is required to post each and every aspect of the activities in which they engage.

If you CHOOSE to reveal the private details of your life, that is on you.

As far as the mythical "right to privacy", that's an urban legend.

The Constitution does not specifically grant one a right to privacy.

Certain Supreme Court decisions have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment.

As a constitutionalist, I would argue to the contrary.

That said, don't expect the government to protect your privacy.

To paraphrase a famous 'mythical firefighting bear', "Only you can protect your privacy."

Courts and some legislation seems to have "bootstrapped" and crafted a belief about privacy.

The Fifth Amendment protects one against self-incrimination, which some say in turn guards personal information.

The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in our Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."
Click to expand...
I could not agree more. It disturbs me the way people out everything out onto social media these days. I just find it interesting here recently with Justice Thomas' remarks on Sullivan, when the two most recent Justices during their Senate hearings made it clear they would uphold the ruling.
 
zddoodah said:
Let's start with the fact that there's no such thing as "the Tarasoff law." Also, you tagged your post as relating to "US Federal Law," but Tarsoff v. Regents of the University of California was a case decided in 1976 by the California Supreme Court (17 Cal. 3d. 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14). Accordingly, the case has no application outside California, unless some other jurisdiction's courts think it is persuasive.

With that said, it's not unreasonable to think that Tarasoff could apply in a lawyer-client situation, but determining whether Tarasoff has been applied outside of the psychotherapist-patient context is something that would require case research. However, Tarasoff has nothing to do with the attorney-client privilege, which is a rule of evidence.



Huh? The cases you've referred to have nothing to do with the issue that was the subject of Tarasoff.



That a divorce has occurred has no impact on the extent to which a particular statement may be subject to exclusion because of the marital privilege. In addressing any issue of privilege, it is essential to know the relevant facts.



Under what state's laws? Each state has its own rules of evidence, as does the federal system. In California, the privilege for confidential marital communications is codified in section 980, et seq. of the Evidence Code.
Click to expand...

The cases I listed were in response to marital privacy and the Griswold case .Each of those cases expanded on the right to privacy based on penumbras and the 14th amendment if I do recall .
 
JJohn171 said:
I could not agree more. It disturbs me the way people out everything out onto social media these days. I just find it interesting here recently with Justice Thomas' remarks on Sullivan, when the two most recent Justices during their Senate hearings made it clear they would uphold the ruling.
Click to expand...

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh aren't what we're told they are.
Kavanaugh might one day make Weinstein look like a chaste monk.
Trump was snookered by those who advised him to even consider Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Baby Bush got snookered when he appointed Roberts, too.
I see them as snakes in the grass.

I have no trust in any entity that confiscates the earnings of its citizenry without a conversation about the limits of such confiscation.

Humankind might have been better off when ruled by those who asserted a divine right to power.

Elections are one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the masses.
 
army judge said:
I have no trust in any entity that confiscates the earnings of its citizenry without a conversation about the limits of such confiscation.
Click to expand...

As you may well know, the founders expressly meant to give the government considerable power to tax. The limits taxation in the constitution on federal taxation are few:
  • No export tax
  • No direct tax unless apportioned to each state by population
  • All taxes other than a direct tax must be uniform among the states
  • All tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives
The states are even less constitutionally constrained in their ability to tax than the federal government.

There is plenty of discussion about just how much the government should take in taxes. Tax issues are one of the things that tend to get the attention of voters. Just ask the late President Bush. His reelection loss is credited by many to be largely due to violating his pledge in his first campaign that went "Read my lips, no new taxes." He raised taxes. Arguably it was the right thing to do at the time. But it cost him reelection.
 
Tax Counsel said:
As you may well know, the founders expressly meant to give the government considerable power to tax. The limits taxation in the constitution on federal taxation are few:
  • No export tax
  • No direct tax unless apportioned to each state by population
  • All taxes other than a direct tax must be uniform among the states
  • All tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives
The states are even less constitutionally constrained in their ability to tax than the federal government.

There is plenty of discussion about just how much the government should take in taxes. Tax issues are one of the things that tend to get the attention of voters. Just ask the late President Bush. His reelection loss is credited by many to be largely due to violating his pledge in his first campaign that went "Read my lips, no new taxes." He raised taxes. Arguably it was the right thing to do at the time. But it cost him reelection.
Click to expand...






Our founders despised the confiscatory efforts of King George so much they tossed mercantile goods into Boston Harbor, faced down British Redcoats, eventually going to war over what the thieving monarch ordered done to the population.

I STILL have no trust in any entity that confiscates the earnings of its citizenry without a conversation about the limits of such confiscation.

You are free to believe anything you wish.

I won't attempt to debate politics with anyone.

My views will never change regarding the confiscatory thefts masquerading as taxes.

 
JJohn171 said:
We are exploiting ourselves, through our own social presence and engagement.
Click to expand...

I'm not exploiting you and, as far as I know, you're not exploiting me. If, in fact, I am exploiting myself, that's my prerogative.

JJohn171 said:
As for our current laws, just because they are current does not mean they accurately reflect the times or the spirit of the laws intended purpose.

Does that make more sense?
Click to expand...

Not really, but I would agree that it is likely that some of the hundreds of thousands of laws that exist in the 50 U.S. states and on the federal level do not "accurately reflect the times." It may also be the case that one or more laws do not "accurately reflect . . . the spirit of the laws [sic] intended purpose."

If there are particular laws that you'd like to discuss, feel free to cite them.
 
army judge said:
Our founders despised the confiscatory efforts of King George so much they tossed mercantile goods into Boston Harbor, faced down British Redcoats, eventually going to war over what the thieving monarch ordered done to the population.
Click to expand...

True enough. What they objected to, however, was not taxation itself by rather taxation without representation. The stamp tax act and the tax on tea were imposed on the colonies by Parliament (not the King himself) but Parliament did not have any members from the colonies — so the colonies were taxed without any representation. It was that lack of voice in taxation that the founders hated so much. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson stated just that in the list of grievances to the King in the Declaration of Independence, "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent".

The government under the Articles of Confederation that preceded our current government lasted just a few years, from 1781 to 1789, when it was replaced by our present Constitution. One of the problems of the Articles of Confederation is that it gave the national government too little power to be effective at doing much of anything. A big part of the problem was that the national government had no taxing power at all. It had to ask the states for money, which the states might or might not provide. The failings of that first attempt at a national government for our nation changed the view of the founders and convinced them that for the nation to succeed, the national government had to have some powers to do things on its own. And a key part of that was to give it significant taxing power. So the broad grant of taxing power given the federal government was no accident by the founders. It was adopted after considerable debate and informed by the failings of that first experiment with the Articles of Confederation.

That is not to say that just because the federal governments and states have the power to impose a tax that they ought to use it. I favor rather limited government and keeping taxes as low as we can while still paying for those things that nation truly needs, like the large military you evidently served for many years (a service for which I thank you, btw). I agree that a conversation over the limits of government taxation is desirable and should be an ongoing conversation for as long as we have government.
 
Tax Counsel said:
like the large military you evidently served for many years (a service for which I thank you, btw).
Click to expand...


We don't need a large military except in times of war.
The war I fought in for 4 years was the last large scale war this nation will ever fight.
The maximum strength of 2,000,000 men pales in comparison to a 12,000,000 man strong military during WWII.
Mankind won't wage those types of wars.
A military force stands ready to serve, much like a fire department, but if people are cautious; it is better for all that the less either is used the better for all concerned.

As far as thanks, I got over that decades ago.
I was compensated during my service, and I receive a rather nice pension that I've drawn for the past 20 odd years.
That said, if governments would cease taxing its citizenry, I'd gladly agree to never receive another dollar of that pension.

Finally as far as a voice is concerned, I'm not stupid enough to think for one minute that any vote I've ever cast mattered.
Once the candidate is sworn into office, he or she doesn't give a damn about the rabble that purportedly elected the rascal.
The incumbent begins doing the bidding of benefactors and moneyed special interests.
The income confiscation scheme (disguised as a tax) didn't exist until 1913.
The government did quite well on customs duties and tariffs.
The people also did better fending for themselves, rather than being enslaved to a massive government.

At any rate, I'm not going to ignore any theft, even thefts disguised as taxes.

Nothing I can do about tax thefts, but gripe.

Which is what soldiers have done for centuries, gripe and moan, while doing their duty.

With the trillion dollar budget for 2018-2019 about 1/5 went towards defense.

At its height over the past 20 years, that number only soared to 23% of the annual budget.

Entitlements (which were once known as the benefit called "transfer payments") eat up the bulk of that $1,000,000,000.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top