In this assignment, you will be reading an interesting case about the application of the crimefraud exception and attorney-client privilege. Pay particular attention to how the court separates the ethical duty of confidentiality (crime-fraud exception) and attorney-client privilege.

Instructions:

Read PURCELL vs. SUFFOLK DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 424 Mass. 109 (masscases.com) and answer the following questions:

1) Is the attorney's obligation to report the threatened arson optional or mandatory under Massachusetts rules? Explain.

2) What arguments can be made to support the attorney's decision to report the threatened arson? Explain.

3) What arguments can made against the attorney's decision to report the threatened arson? What adverse effects do you foresee if the lawyer reported a client who was merely "running off at the mouth" and "blowing smoke"? Explain.

4) Does the attorney's prior disclosure of the client's threatened arson bar the client's subsequent assertion of attorney-client privilege, thus preventing the lawyer from testifying against the client in a subsequent criminal proceeding?

How does the court differentiate between the duty of confidentiality and attorneyclient privilege? Explain. List, number, and answer each question separately. Cite all answers as appropriate using Bluebook form and style of citation / abbreviation