Purcell v. District Attorney for Suffolk District
424 Mass. 109, 1997 Mass. LEXIS 11, 676 N.E.2d 436 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies only when a client seeks an attorney's services to enable or aid in the commission of a future crime or fraud. The exception does not apply simply because a client communicates an intent to commit a crime during a legitimate legal consultation for an unrelated matter.
Facts:
- Joseph Tyree, who had recently been fired as a maintenance man, received a court order to vacate his apartment.
- On June 21, 1994, Tyree consulted attorney Jeffrey W. Purcell, who worked for Greater Boston Legal Services, regarding the eviction.
- During the consultation, Tyree made threats to burn down the apartment building.
- After deliberation, Purcell reported Tyree's threats to the Boston police, believing Tyree might engage in harmful conduct.
- The next day, when constables arrived to evict Tyree, they discovered incendiary materials, including gasoline, bottles with wicks, and disconnected smoke detectors in the building.
- Tyree was arrested and subsequently indicted for attempted arson.
Procedural Posture:
- The district attorney subpoenaed attorney Purcell to testify at Joseph Tyree's first criminal trial for attempted arson.
- A Superior Court judge granted Purcell’s motion to quash the subpoena.
- The trial ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury.
- The Commonwealth decided to retry Tyree and again sought Purcell's testimony.
- A different Superior Court judge denied Purcell’s motion to quash an anticipated subpoena, ordering him to testify.
- Purcell initiated this action in the single justice session of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, seeking relief from the order.
- The single justice reserved and reported the case to the full court for a decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege apply to compel an attorney's testimony regarding a client's stated intention to commit a future crime, when the client was not seeking the attorney's advice or assistance in furtherance of that crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Welkins, C.J.
No. The crime-fraud exception does not apply merely because a client communicates an intent to commit a crime; the exception is triggered only if the client seeks the lawyer's services in furtherance of the criminal activity. The court held that the purpose of the exception is to prevent the attorney-client privilege from being used as a shield for communications intended to facilitate a crime. Adopting the standard from the Proposed Massachusetts Rules of Evidence, the court defined the exception as applying when 'the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud.' Here, there was insufficient evidence to find that Tyree consulted Purcell for the purpose of getting advice to further the arson. The court also expressed a public policy concern: forcing attorneys to testify about disclosures they made to prevent harm would discourage them from reporting such threats in the future, thereby undermining the purpose of the ethical rule that permits such disclosures.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and narrows the scope of the crime-fraud exception in Massachusetts by focusing on the client's purpose in communicating with the attorney. It establishes that the mere discussion of a future crime during a legitimate legal consultation does not automatically waive the attorney-client privilege. The ruling protects the integrity of the attorney-client relationship, ensuring clients can speak freely, which in turn enables lawyers to potentially dissuade them from criminal acts or, if necessary, make a permissible disclosure to prevent harm. It creates a higher bar for prosecutors seeking to compel an attorney's testimony, requiring them to show the legal services were actively sought to facilitate the crime.
Unlock the full brief for Purcell v. District Attorney for Suffolk District