Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 899 — Evidence
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-146u (2025)

Disclosure of confidential communication between public defender and represented person prohibited

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) As used in this section:

(1) “Person” means an indigent defendant, as defined in section 51-297;

(2) “Confidential communications” means all oral and written communications transmitted in confidence between a public defender and a person the public defender has been appointed to provide legal representation to relating to legal advice sought by the person and all records prepared by the public defender in furtherance of the rendition of such legal advice; and

(3) “Public defender” means the Chief Public Defender, Deputy Chief Public Defender, public defenders, assistant public defenders, deputy assistant public defenders, Division of Public Defender Services assigned counsel and the employees of the Division of Public Defender Services.

(b) In any civil or criminal case or proceeding or in any legislative or administrative proceeding, all confidential communications shall be privileged and a public defender shall not disclose any such communications unless the person who is represented by the public defender provides informed consent, as defined in the Rules of Professional Conduct, to waive the privilege and allow such disclosure.

(P.A. 11-51, S. 12.)

History: P.A. 11-51 effective July 1, 2011.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2014–2014 · leading case: State v. Wang, 92 A.3d 220 (Conn. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Wang, 92 A.3d 220 (Conn. 2014). · cites it 8× “Additionally, the commission contends that if a self-represented litigant were to submit a funding request to the commission, the information con- tained in the request would be subject to public disclosure because the statute prohibiting the disclosure of confidential…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.