In re Jacqueline F., 47 N.Y.2d 215 (1979)
An attorney may be compelled to disclose a client’s address, otherwise protected by attorney-client privilege, when the client’s intent is to frustrate a court order, especially in child custody cases where the state has a vital interest.
Summary
This case addresses whether an attorney can be compelled to disclose a client’s address, which is typically privileged, when the client’s purpose is to defy a court order, particularly in a child custody dispute. After losing a custody battle for her niece, the client moved to Puerto Rico without informing the court and disconnected her phone. The New York Court of Appeals held that the attorney must disclose the client’s address because the client was deliberately attempting to avoid the court’s judgment, and the state’s interest in protecting the child outweighed the attorney-client privilege in this specific circumstance. The court emphasized that attorney-client privilege is not absolute and cannot be used to shield actions that undermine the administration of justice.
Facts
The natural parents (respondents) of Jacqueline F. had been engaged in a legal battle to regain custody of their child from her paternal aunt since 1974. The parents initially placed Jacqueline with the aunt due to the mother’s illness. Upon recovery, the aunt refused to return the child. The aunt obtained guardianship letters from the Surrogate’s Court, leading to the dismissal of the parents’ initial habeas corpus petition. After the guardianship letters were revoked and custody was ordered to the parents, the aunt appealed and then moved to Puerto Rico with Jacqueline, leaving no forwarding address and disconnecting her phone, while a stay of the order was in effect.
Procedural History
The Surrogate’s Court initially denied the parents’ application to revoke the guardianship letters, but later revoked them on July 1, 1977, ordering the aunt to return Jacqueline. The Appellate Division stayed this order pending appeal. After the aunt moved to Puerto Rico, the parents’ motion to vacate the stay was denied based on the attorney’s representation that the move was merely a vacation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Surrogate’s order on November 25, 1977, and a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied on December 19, 1977. The parents then initiated a proceeding in Surrogate’s Court to hold the aunt in contempt and compel the attorney to disclose her whereabouts. The Surrogate ordered the attorney to disclose the address, which was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether an attorney can be compelled to disclose the client’s address, a communication generally protected by the attorney-client privilege, in a post-judgment proceeding, when the client’s actions suggest an intent to frustrate a court order concerning child custody.
Holding
Yes, because the attorney-client privilege is not absolute and yields to the state’s vital interest in ensuring compliance with court orders regarding child custody, especially when the client’s actions indicate a deliberate attempt to thwart the court’s mandate.
Court’s Reasoning
The court acknowledged the importance of the attorney-client privilege (CPLR 4503), designed to encourage full disclosure between attorney and client, quoting Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 NY 420, 424 that people should not be afraid of “fear that such facts will be made public to their disgrace or detriment by their attorney.” However, the court also noted that it operates as an exception to the general requirement of testimony and should be cautiously observed, quoting Matter of Horowitz, 482 F2d 72, 81 that all privileges constitute an “obstacle” to the truth-finding process. The court also acknowledged that in Matter of Kaplan [Blumenfeld], 8 NY2d 214, 218, it previously stated that the privilege does not categorically never attach to a client’s identity. The court emphasized that while a client’s identity is generally not privileged, an exception exists when disclosing it would be inconsistent with the nature of the attorney-client relationship and the duty assumed by the attorney, citing Banco Brasileiro v. Doe, 36 NY2d 592, 599. The court found that the client’s actions demonstrated a