Document Type

Article

Media Type

Text

Abstract

In re Himmel, the Illinois Supreme Court addressed the dilemma that confronted attorney James Himmel, who had been forced to choose between reporting another attorney's misconduct and maintaining his own client's secret. The high court's pronouncements regarding Himmel's dilemma have been widely read, though not always with pleasure. Yet, attorney Himmel faced a second dilemma: How could he accommodate his client's desire to discuss her legal problems with him in the presence of both her mother and her fiancé, while assuring her that their discussions would probably be deemed privileged and thus immunized from compelled disclosure? On this other dilemma, the Illinois Supreme Court said little, noting only that no privilege would be recognized unless the mother and fiancé were "agents" of Himmel's client. The court provided neither substantive guidelines nor procedural rules for determining whether such an agency relationship exists. In the hope of aiding those who may face Himmel's other dilemma, this article will analyze who can be considered an agent of an individual client for the purpose of attorney-client communications.

Publication Date

1-1-1994

Department

College of Law

Language

eng

Rights Statement 2

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.