If a person retained a lawyer to draft up a document indicating that they no longer want to be an enrolled member (JW's) and therefore annul their baptsim, AND send it certified mail DIRECTLY to an individual named lawyer sitting at Bethel, would they not be protected under attorney-client privilege and therefore non disclosure of the information with a third party? I would think if this was the case and the information was forwarded to the BOE, could not the Bethel attorney be sanctioned or disbarred?
Is there Attorney-client privilege for communications sent directly to Bethel legal?
by sinis 19 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
wannabefree
Disclaimer: I have no credentials to answer this question.
I would think that your lawyer would not be able to discuss this with others, but the Watchtower lawyer doesn't represent you, they represent the Organization, why would they not be permitted to share this information with their client since it is concerning your involvement with their client?
-
sinis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-product_doctrine
Just a thought...
-
wannabefree
So, you become a member of "Joe's Gym", you send a letter to the attorney that represents "Joe's Gym" telling him you wish to annul your membership with "Joe's Gym". Can that attorney share the information with a representative of "Joe's Gym"?
-
sinis
Now this is interesting!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest-penitent_privilege
United States of AmericaMain article: Confessional privilege (United States)
The First Amendment is largely cited as the jurisprudential basis. The earliest and most influential case acknowledging the priest-penitent privilege was People v. Phillips, where the Court of General Sessions of the City of New York refused to compel a priest to testify or face criminal punishment. The Court opined:"It is essential to the free exercise of a religion, that its ordinances should be administered - that its ceremonies as well as its essentials should be protected. Secrecy is of the essence of penance. The sinner will not confess, nor will the priest receive his confession, if the veil of secrecy is removed: To decide that the minister shall promulgate what he receives in confession, is to declare that there shall be no penance..."
A few years after Phillips was decided, People v. Smith distinguished the case on the grounds that the defendant had approached the minister as a "friend or adviser," not in his capacity as a professional or spiritual advisor. As with most privileges, a debate still exists about the circumstances under which the priest-penitent privilege applies. The capacity in which the clergyman is acting at the time of the communication is relevant in many jurisdictions.
In twenty-five states, the clergyman-communicant statutory privilege does not clearly indicate who holds the privilege. In seventeen states, the penitent's right to hold the privilege is clearly stated. In only six states, both a penitent and a member of the clergy are expressly allowed by the statute to hold the privilege.
So in some states, the penitent has the right, I wonder how this would affect communications with Bethel, you, BOE, and DF'ing if YOU held the privilege?
-
sinis
wannabefree - I don't know, thats what I have been looking into..
-
sinis
I really wonder if you could also go with a: "Due to medical issues XXXXX no longer can perform the requirements as outlined to be one of JW's?" Now, if this were disclosed would it not be a violation of medical law? Thin line I know, but I have been looking for a way to trap them legally and get off scott free.
-
wannabefree
Disclaimer: I have no idea.
My take on the "Work Product Doctrine" you linked to is this ...
example... my attorney hires a private investigator, it is decided by my attorney that the information discovered by the investigator will not be used in my case, the information is privileged and can not be sought after in discovery by the opposing attorney.
-
sinis
Yea, that kind of makes sense.
-
EntirelyPossible
Absolutely not. Anything you share with your lawyer is subject to priviledge. Anything you instruct him to share with an outside party is not priviledged information since they aren't your attorney.
The work product doctrine doesn't apply since you aren't doing discovery or preparation for litigation, you are ASKING your attorney to send information to an outside party.