Officers are investigating a burglary. Attorney calls and says a "good samaritan" wants to turn in the property taken in the burglary, but attorney won't tell the "good samaratin's" name, claiming attorney/client privilege. Having done just a few minutes research, my position is that any communications between the attorney and the client are privileged, but the identity of the client is not. In fact, at this point, I don't believe the attorney has even demonstrated that the "good samaritan" is his client.

Any thoughts?

Have the police fingerprint the property when you receive it.

How good of a Samaritan is he if he won't help catch the bad guy?

I think I remember learning in the ethics law school class something about a client's identity is privileged....but I couldn't find anything in the ethics book by TDCAA. Interesting question...it doesn't sound like the name of the client is "tangible" that the attorney would be required to hand over.

For the Texas privilege, TEX. R. EVID. 503, you might look at Texas Rules of Evidence Handbook 2003 at 432-33 (citing Jim Waters Homes, 593 S.W.2d at 752).

Other cases include In re Kaplan, 168 N.E.2d 660, 660-62 (N.Y. 1960); D'Alessio v. Gilberg, 205 A.D.2d 8 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,1994) (the client consulted the attorney in connection with his or her involvement in a fatal hit-and-run accident. Disclosure of his identity would reveal his possible involvement in a crime in connection with that accident, which is the precise situation for which he sought legal advice. Under these circumstances his or her identity constitutes a confidential communication).

In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 926 F.2d 1423, 1431-33 5th Cir. 1991) DeGuerin v. United States, 214 F.Supp.2d 726, 737 (S.D.Tex.,2002) (If revelation of a client's identity would also reveal a privileged communication, both the identity and the communication are privileged).

There is a discussion about this in the TDCAA "Legal Ethics & Texas Criminal Law", page 44, nn 68-71. Generally, a client's identity is not privileged except where "so much of [an] actual communication has already been disclosed that the identification of the client amounts to disclosure of a confidential communication" OR where the disclosure of the client's identity would supply the last link in an existing chain of incriminating evidence likely to lead to the client's indictment.