Page 135 - REDEMPTION_Flipbook_Final 2025

- Geraldine Hughes -

The crime/fraud waiver is based on the recognition that
when the client seeks an attorney's assistance to commit a crime
or fraud, the privilege serves no useful purpose and its protec-
tion should be withdrawn. This rule is true whether or not the
lawyer was aware of the client's unlawful goal.
Although a client's state of mind in seeking legal represen-
tation is difficult to prove, the appellate courts have imposed
a stringent limitation on the use of conduct evidence in deter-
mining whether to apply the crime/fraud exception. (Defini-
tion: Conduct- the act, manner, or process of carrying on; per-
sonal behavior.)
Dr. Chandler clearly stated in the recorded conversation
with Dave Schwartz, that was aired all over the world, that he,
"hired an attorney named Barry K. Rothman because he is
DEVIOUS, NASTY and CRUEL, and can destroy everybody
in sight." Fraud destroys the attorney/client privilege. The
privilege protecting communications between attorney and
client is lost if the relation is abused in cases where the client
seeks advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud.
Wilson v. Superior Court, 148 Cal.App.2d 433, 433 [307 P.2d
37]; Abbott v. Superior Court, 78 Cal App.2d 19, 21 [177 P.2d
317].
Once fraud is determined, said findings should have ethi-
cal implications. It could be argued that a client used a lawyer's
representation for fraudulent purposes without the lawyer's
knowledge; however, that argument seems highly improbable.
The very nature of the abuse suggests that it may have been
the idea of the attorney.
California Evidence Code section 956, states: "There is no
privilege under this article if the services of the lawyer were
sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan
to commit a crime or a fraud." (California's Statutory Excep-
tions to the Principle of Professional Confidentiality)

134