skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 166975 Find in a Library
Title: People v. Gionis: Beware of Gratuitous Advice, Attorneys May Testify Against a Business Acquaintance or Friend
Journal: Thomas Jefferson Law Review  Volume:18  Issue:1  Dated:(Spring 1996)  Pages:97-115
Author(s): D M Tormey
Date Published: 1996
Page Count: 19
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This case comment discusses the questionable result of the "Gionis" decision by the California Supreme Court, the failure of the majority to consider a significant part of section 951 of the California Evidence Code, and its failure to correctly apply California precedent.
Abstract: In People v. Gionis (1995), the California Supreme Court held that incriminating remarks made to an attorney were not privileged because the defendant had no expectation the attorney would represent him in the matter for which he received advice. The decision in "Gionis" not only intrudes into the well settled area of the attorney-client privilege, but creates a dubious cloud over any legal communications between attorneys and their friends, associates, and acquaintances. The first part of this case comment describes the origin and history of the attorney- client privilege. Then it presents the factual and procedural background to the issues raised and the details and reasoning of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions. It then examines the court's analysis of the attorney-client issues in greater detail and discusses the court's failure to consider the remaining portion of section 951, which would have been dispositive. Finally, the author discusses the policy concerns and implications of the precedent set herein. 111 footnotes
Main Term(s): State supreme courts
Index Term(s): Attorney client relations; Attorney work products; California; Privileged communications
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=166975

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.