How Could A Defense Attorney Violate His Attorney/client Privilege This Way

What happens to a trial where the defense lawyer violates attorney-client privilege, say, tapes the client confessing to some heinous act that would turn the tide of the entire case?

If the hypothetical tape is disclosed to the prosecution without the client’s consent, mistrial—I agree pretty much completely with Cliff Gilley,¹ including the part about the delinquent attorney being disciplined or disbarred.I suppose, though, that if one wished to quibble, the question doesn’t technically specify that the incriminating confession isn’t actually disclosed. In that case there’s no “violation of privilege,” either, though I think it’s definitely odd behaviour on the lawyer’s part. The tape in that case might constitute work product. I imagine that most state disciplinary authorities would rule that attorney would be required to return the tape to the client on demand.As I’ve written a few times, an attorney’s duty of confidentiality is actually broader than privilege itself.² Privilege attaches to any statement made outside the presence of persons other than the attorney, the attorney’s subordinate, strictly for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.³ Confidentiality includes any generally sensitive information; the very fact that an attorney has been approached by a potential client could even be confidential.⁴Notes:¹ Cliff Gilley's answer to What happens to a trial where the defense lawyer violates attorney-client privilege, say, tapes the client confessing to some heinous act that would turn the tide of the entire case?² John Gragson's answer to R. Kelly’s lawyer is talking about his client’s past case. I doubt Kelly told him it is okay. What is about the attorney-client privilege?John Gragson's answer to Do judges, lawyers and legal community applaud if a defense attorney reveals his clients' privileged information to prevent the client from receiving a lesser sentence than he deserved and ensure justice?³ Knopick v. Boyle, 189 A.3d 432, 439 (Pa.Super. 2018).⁴ E.g. A.B.A. Model Rule 1.6, Comment [2]:A fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that, in the absence of the client's informed consent, the lawyer must not reveal information relating to the representation.This comment is adopted verbatim with Pennsylvania’s version of this rule.

Under attorney-client privilege, what happens if the attorney leaks information to a third party?

Generally speaking, the attorney client privilege belongs to the client not the attorney and only the client has the power to waive the attorney-client privilege. It is  important to bear in mind that a waiver may occur even though the client does not intend to waive the privilege.  For example, if the client carelessly allows  the information to be disclosed to others or is aware that his attorney has disclosed privileged documents to others and does not object, confidentiality will be lost, and a waiver will occur. The waiver may also result from failure to object to the  demand for disclosure in litigation. Once the privilege has been waived, it is  treated as a waiver for all purposes.  The example of leaking a document to third parties would only waive the privilege if the client found out about it and did nothing to claw the document back.   The lawyer would still have violated a basic ethical obligation.  Another factor that, in many instances, more broadly and more effectively  prevents disclosure of information received from a client to others is the  ethical obligation by the attorney to maintain client confidences. As a general legal ethics precept, an attorney is not allowed to reveal client confidences to others or use the same to the disadvantage of a client or for the benefit of himself/herself or someone else without obtaining consent from the client. This ethical obligation exists regardless of whether the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine applies. However, there are some exceptions to this obligation that are recognized in many jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions,an attorney has the discretionary right to reveal confidential client information if such disclosure will prevent substantial physical harm to a third person.  Other jurisdictions not only recognize the substantial physical harm exception, but also give an attorney the discretionary right to disclose confidential client information if disclosure is necessary to prevent substantial injury to the financial interests or property of third persons. Many jurisdictions have an  ethical rule, applicable in litigation matters, that makes it a mandatory requirement for an attorney to disclose confidential client information to a court when it is necessary in order to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent  act by the client.

Does disclosure to a therapist break attorney-client privilege?

The answer to your original question is no. Your question details involve a poor understanding of Privilege (evidence). No discussing the details with a friend would have no effect on attorney-client privilege the attorney would still be legally and ethically obligated to not discuss those details. Discussions with a doctor or therapist would be subject to a similar privilege (where those details were relevant to ongoing or required treatment).The Doctor is just as legally and ethically bound to not discuss those details as the attorney.Now, the privacy of the information is compromised when you discuss it with a friend because there is no Privilege (evidence) expectation in conversations between two friends. But such conversation while compromising the information would have no direct effect on the ethical restraint on the doctor or attorney.Disclaimer; I am neither a doctor nor a lawyer I just like to read and think, I encourage you to ask a lawyer in your area.

Is the concept of attorney-client privilege harmful for 'justice' in case the defendant admits his guilt?

In this sort of scenario, the best way to see the problem is to assume the opposite (in philosophy, we call this reductio ad abusrdum: reduce to absurdity).  If a hypothesis leads to an absurd (in the logical sense) conclusion, then the hypothesis can be deemed to have been proven false.Okay, so assume hypothetically that there was no attorney-client privilege.  What would be the result?First and foremost, the client would never disclose any disadvantageous information to his lawyer; as a result, the lawyer wouldn't be able to anticipate the impact of that information (and/or change their strategy accordingly).  Worse, the client would have every reason to lie to the attorney, to prevent #2...Second, the attorney would be the first witness called by any opposing counsel, in every case.  This itself is a prime absurdity: defense counsel cannot be a witness, and so it would be impossible to have a defense counsel at all.  The entire concept of a defense attorney would become impossible.  This alone tells us we cannot remove this privilege.Like many things, the attorney-client privilege is a necessary thing (a necessary evil, to some) to allow an adversarial justice system to exist.  In the inquisitorial justice system, where the parties aren't positioned the way they are here, it's possible that you could avoid it, I suppose.  It's just not possible here.

How can it be legal for the government to raid and take an attorney’s client records when it is contrary to attorney/client privilege?

What many lay people don’t understand is that the attorney-client privilege does not shield either the attorney or the client when they are involved in criminal or fraudulent activity. By way of a very simple example, if I have robbed a bank, hire an attorney to defend me and tell him/her everything about the robbery, what I have said is “privileged” and cannot be disclosed. Ever. And if my attorney took notes of the conversation, those notes are also privileged. Thus, if an FBI agent, even with a warrant, searches my attorney’s office and seizes those notes, the attorney-client privilege will preclude the prosecution from ever using them against me. But note that this applies to past conduct.If I tell my attorney I’m going to rob a bank tomorrow and ask his advice on things to avoid that might otherwise lead to my arrest, that conversation, which involves planned future criminal activity, is not privileged and any notes my attorney took about the conversation would likewise not be privileged.If I reveal something To my attorney that could be privileged but tell him to give the information to my business partner’s attorney and he does, the information loses its privileged character.I could go on for pages about exceptions, but suffice it to say there are many, many exceptions to the attorney-client privilege. In fact, if you were to look at it quantitatively, you would see that only a small percentage of the information a lawyer receives is truly “privileged.”Also searches of lawyers’ offices are normally carried out under tight court-imposed rules and restrictions.Many texts, treatises, court opinions and law review articles have been written on this subject meaning judges who sign warrants for law offices, prosecutors who draft them, and officers who execute them are well-versed on the issue. However, covering all the issues suggested by your question in one (and even many) posts is not possible. And, as I hope I have covered it, the issue is not black and white as you seem to believe.

Do judges, lawyers and legal community applaud if a defense attorney reveals his clients' privileged information to prevent the client from receiving a lesser sentence than he deserved and ensure justice?

If a lawyer revealed confidential information that is privileged, unless it falls under an exception, the information cannot be used in court against the client, without the client’s consent. As such, revealing the information would be pointless.The only way the legal community would applaud such a situation is when we read the inevitable disciplinary statement that would come out against the lawyer for violating his ethical obligations. We would be horrified if a lawyer broke a client’s confidence in an effort to help the government obtain a more severe sentence.In the US, the scenario you suggest is literally impossible. It violates the most basic tenets of our legal system. That is, we lawyers are obligated to provide zealous representation to our clients. It is our job to get the best result possible for our clients by acting within the confines of our ethics rules and the law. That is how we ensure justice.

How does the prosecution prosecute if all evidence of the crime cannot be used in court because an attorney broke attorney-client privilege?

What makes you think that violation of attorney-client privilege is it remedied by suppression? That could be the basis for attorney discipline of the attorney who broke the privilege, but the rules of evidence say that evidence is admissible if it is relevant and not otherwise barred. I know of no rule saying that evidence obtained in violation of the attorney-client privilege is barred in the way that for example evidence obtained by police coercion or as fruit of the poisonous tree with a wrongful arrest is barred. In general, if the prosecution cannot prove its case because evidence is lacking or admissible, either it must drop the charges or face defeat in the form of an acquittal. But that wouldn't be the case in the situation you postulate. An attorney who violates the privilege is in bad enough trouble, one who gets his client convicted because of such a violation is it really serious trouble, but the prosecution is not in trouble.