Attorney-Client Privilege

In response to “Big Brother Makes Lawyers Turn Snitch,” Column Right, March 16:

Paul Craig Roberts’ diatribe, which summons the specter of Big Brother and attributes Gestapo tactics to the government in its effort to unscramble the savings and loan fraud fiasco, is simply absurd. Roberts cites the recent suit against Kaye, Scholer as a frontal attack on the attorney-client privilege. Nonsense. As any legal scholar will inform Roberts, the attorney-client privilege is not absolute and does not give attorneys carte blanche in pursuing their clients’ interests.

If an attorney assists a client in perpetrating a fraud, the attorney-client privilege disappears. Similarly, if a client requests assistance in a questionable endeavor, the attorney has the options of resigning from representing the client or, perish the thought, advising the client to do the correct thing.

While it is sometimes difficult to determine what is legally, ethically or morally correct, some professionals have elevated their ability to manipulate the system above all else and are never concerned about the moral or ethical ramifications of their actions. If a client can pay, the desired result can be achieved. It is only just that attorneys be held to the same standards as anyone else. Roberts’ claim that government prosecutors are “fabricating evidence, lying to the court and relying on perjury” is untrue and irresponsible. Roberts cannot cite a single actual case of fabricated evidence or perjured testimony. None exist. To the contrary, since the government initiated its coordinated efforts to prosecute the savings and loan crooks, over 2,655 individuals have been convicted. Few of the cases involved “novel theories” as Roberts claims. Most concerned good old-fashioned fraud by cheats and con artists.

While vigorous representation is a cornerstone of our legal system, facilitation of fraud has never been tolerated.

TERREE A. BOWERS

Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney

Los Angeles