NCJ Number
74693
Journal
Georgetown Law Journal Volume: 69 Issue: 1 Dated: (October 1980) Pages: 1-100
Date Published
1980
Length
100 pages
Annotation
Recent developments underlying the sudden emergence of the law office search, the threat to the attorney-client relationship such searches pose, and reconciliation of law enforcement needs with confidentiality privileges are discussed.
Abstract
A law office search threatens the attorney-client relationship by jeopardizing values protected by the 4th, 5th, and 16th amendments. Many developments explain the sudden and recent emergence of the law office search. Some would argue that the phenomenon might be part of a campaign of harassment against defense counsel. Others contend that it is part of the broader problem, search of 'institutional third parties.' In addition, some law enforcement officials have concluded that certain defense attorneys withhold documentary evidence, especially in white collar crime cases. Most importantly, recent constitutional developments have spurred the emergence of the law office search. Notably, the Supreme Court's rejection of the mere evidence rule along with the demise of the private papers doctrine have contributed to the increase in searches. Law enforcement officials will continue to have legitimate need to gain access to information and criminal evidence possessed by attorneys. In most cases, this need can be satisfied without damaging the attorney-client relationship if the police serve the attorney with a subpoena, whether legally required or not. Such an approach would have a less inhibiting effect on client communications and attorney trial preparation. Moreover, proceeding by subpoena is desirable because of its operative premise, that the professional integrity of the bar can be relied upon. If the subpoena preference alternative is rejected, competing interests might be reconciled by adjusting search and seizure procedures. A legislative solution is preferable to judicial implementation. Included are 503 footnotes.