client defense in Louisiana

1989It states: “No legal adviser is permitted, whether during or after the termination of his employment as such, unless with his client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him as such legal adviser by or on behalf of his client, or any advice given by him to his client, or any information that he may have gotten by reason of his being such legal adviser.” In State v. Green, 493 So.2d 1178 (La.1986), the Louisiana Supreme Court enumerated three factors which must be met before a client may claim the benefit of the privilege.

1987State v. Green, supra .

1985State v. Berry, 430 So.2d 1005 (La.1983).

1985State v. Berry, 430 So.2d 1005 (La.1983).

2017Keith v. Keith, 48,919 (La.App. 2d Cir. 05/15/14), 140 So.3d 1202,1208 .

1997While we would conclude the client privilege may be extended to the examiner, we feel the principles set forth in New Orleans Saints v. Griesedieck, 612 F. Supp. 59 (La.

1997In State v. Montgomery, 499 So.2d 709 , (La.App 1986) the court was presented with the question of the extension of the attorney/client privilege, and recognized that many states have expanded their attorney/client privilege to include their agents.

1988The United States Supreme Court has also recently addressed the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in the case of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2065 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), in which the court stated in part: “No particular set of detailed rules for counsel’s conduct can satisfactorily take account of the variety of circumstances faced by defense counsel or the range of legitimate decisions regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant.

1988The United States Supreme Court has also recently addressed the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in the case of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2065 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), in which the court stated in part: “No particular set of detailed rules for counsel’s conduct can satisfactorily take account of the variety of circumstances faced by defense counsel or the range of legitimate decisions regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant.

1988Graffagnino v. King, 436 So.2d 559 (La.1983) at 564.

1984State v. Seiss, supra. We can find nothing in the record suggesting that counsel violated some duty to his client or that if any violation occurred, it prejudiced the client in the defense of the case.