The Lawyer: Obligated Beyond the Grave

Swidler and Berlin, et.al. v. United States, 524 U.S 399

(1998) established the extent of the application of the attorney-
client privilege, particularly with testimonial privileges. In this
case, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the
attorney-client privilege survives even after clients death, and
precludes posthumous disclosure made to lawyers in criminal
proceedings. As penned by Justice Black, Interpreted in the light
of reason and experience, knowing that communications will
remain confidential even after death serves a weighty interest in
encouraging a client to communicate fully and frankly with
counsel The Independent Counsel has [simply] not made a
sufficient showing to overturn the common-law rule embodied

In Philippine Court Jurisdiction, this common-law rule is well-
recognized in Rule 15. 02, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court.

However, the attorney-client privilege concerning testimonial
privileges in this jurisdiction has not been to test yet as to its
posthumous application. It may be noted, though, that in
Mercado v. Vitriolo [A.C no. 5108. May 26, 2005] the attorney-
client privilege was described as the duty of a lawyer to
preserve his clients secrets and confidence outlasts the
termination of the attorney-client relationship, and continues
even after the clients death.

On the contrary, the attorney-client privilege in the light of
identification of clients in trials and court representation has been
previously raised and well-addressed by the Supreme Court.

In Hayudini v. Sandiganbayan [G.R No. 108113, September
20, 1996] the Court ruled that the attorney-client privilege may
be asserted in refusing to disclose the name of petitioners client
if theres a strong probability that revealing the name which is as
much as communication would implicate the client in the very
activity for which he sought the lawyers advice, despite the
general rule that clients identity should not be shrouded in
mystery.

While in Regoso v. Court of Appeals [G.R no. 91879, July 6,
1992] the Supreme Court concurred with the appellate court
decision which reads, It is a well-established rule that a lawyer-
client relationship is terminated upon the death of the client. The
lawyers authority to appear for his client automatically ceases (5
Am. Jur. 282), reiterating Sec. 16 and 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court which provides for the duties of attorney upon death,
incapacity, or incompetency of a party.


References:

Hayudini v. Sandiganbayan [G.R No. 108113, September 20, 1996]
Retrieved from:
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw199614.htm#.UvEKIfmSxOx

Mercado v. Vitriolo [A.C no. 5108. May 26, 2005] Retrieved from:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/ac_5108.htm

Regoso v. Court of Appeals [G.R no. 91879, July 6, 1992]
Retrieved from:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/jul1992/gr_91879_1992.html

Swidler and Berlin, et.al. v. United States, 524 U.S. 399, 118 S. Ct.
2081, 141 L. Ed. 2d 379, 1998 U.S.
Retrieved from: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/399/












Word count: 394