The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

When Client Confidentiality Challenges Morals

92 Comments

May 27, 2008 by Kathy McManus

If you had critical information that could free an innocent man from prison, would you reveal it to a judge, even if doing so was illegal? 

A North Carolina lawyer named Staples Hughes wrestled with that question for 22 years, while a man he believes is innocent of a double murder continued to serve two life sentences in prison. 

“I don’t know whether ethical behavior is always the same as being a moral hero,” Hughes said. “Maybe if I was some kind of moral hero, I would have told.” 

What Hughes didn’t tell is that in the 1980’s, a client of his confided that he alone had committed a double murder for which that other man was serving the two life sentences. But Hughes could not reveal the confession because he was bound to secrecy by attorney-client privilege, a legal rule that prevents an attorney from disclosing any confidential information obtained from a client. 

So for 22 years, Hughes kept the information to himself, while the man he believed to be innocent—Lee Wayne Hunt—remained in prison. 

Then Hughes’ client died, and with him, Hughes reasoned, the confines of attorney-client privilege. 

“It seemed to me at that point ethically permissible and morally imperative that I spill the beans,” Hughes explained. 

Appearing before a judge, Hughes finally revealed his secret, explaining that his client was dead. “My disclosure can’t hurt him,” Hughes told the court, “And I have to weigh that disclosure against the continuing harm” to Lee Wayne Hunt. 

Wrong, said the judge, who refused to consider Hughes’ new testimony and then reported him to the state bar for disciplinary action, saying he had violated attorney-client privilege, even though the client was dead. 

Experts in legal ethics echoed the judge’s decision, saying that attorney-client privilege is so sacred it remains in effect even after a client’s death, and can only be broken to stop an execution--not to free an innocent man from life behind bars. 

The North Carolina state bar recently dismissed the judge’s complaint against Hughes, but Lee Wayne Hunt remains in prison. 

“I go home, have a glass of wine, work in the yard,” Hughes said. “And there’s a guy sitting in a prison camp two counties away, and my feeling is he’s going to be there for the rest of his life.” 

Tell us what you think: Do you agree that a dead man’s confidence should outweigh a potentially innocent man’s chance for freedom? What would you do if the law said doing the right thing was actually the wrong thing?

92 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• May 27, 2008 by Beth Prenot

  Ones heart always answers any moral question the best. No matter the personal consequences, accepting direction only from our hearts creates peace and love within and without. Even if that man is not freed of the walls that hold him, freeing his mind with the realization "someone else cares about me" could turn his life around for the better, even while he's still in prison. Individually, this lawyer needs to decide who will rule his mind, his ego or his heart. All loving actions make some type of positive step forward even if its not the one anticipated.

  Reply

• May 28, 2008 by Jessi Chelle

  True morality will disobey the law of the land in a situation such as this. Laws are supposed to protect us all, and if in some instance a law is harming rather than helping, it ought to be waived for the exception. I feel strongly that Mr. Hunt ought to be released! Pity's sakes, where is our country if we cannot free an innocent man simply because the man who testifies of his innocence broke a law? Mr. Hughes waited to be perfectly sure his client wouldn't be harmed. Kudos to him all around.

  Reply

  • May 29, 2008 by Beth Prenot

    Amen. Love to all, beth.

    Reply

    • May 5, 2010 by katherine

      This is so wrong. This rule needs to be changed. It appears they don't want to know because they'll have to live with the decision they have made on that person's life. What they're sayin? It's alright to sit in prison all those years possibly dying of a broken heart, stress,suffering, harms way, other illness where death lurks daily before you even get to death row. But it's fine to tell when he's about to go to the death chamber. A New World Order. I'd tell and turn in my license. I thank God all the time I have a conscience. And I feel for people.

  • July 4, 2008 by D.S

    Totally 100% agreed.

    Reply

  • May 31, 2010 by Tina Holden

    I could not agree with you more Jesse, laws are suppose to protect us all. I think someone should rethink this Code of Ethics thing, so that a persons innocence will not be violated by it.

    Reply

• May 28, 2008 by Mia

  We ALL know that the law is flawed. We also know that there are ways around just about any law out there. I would have found a way to anonymously get the information out. And who are these "experts" that say the truth and justice should not be served in lieu of confidentiality??? That's just asinine. This judge needs to be reported for disciplinary action. He needs to be stripped of his title because being able to look the truth in the eye and turn the other cheek clearly means he is incompetent to do his job by accurately and fairly judging the truth and upholding justice. The guilty culprit is dead and there can be no harm to come out of the situation at this point so why not admit the evidence?

  Reply

• June 2, 2008 by Roberta Pliner

  This is a no-brainer. Someone is sitting in prison sentenced to life for crimes he did not commit. But the lawyer whose client admits to the crimes decides he cannot present the truth to the prosecutor, because that would violate lawyer/client confidentiality. SO WHAT??? On the face of it and going on the story as presented, at worst, Lawyer Hughes would have been reprimanded by the bar, maybe even had his license suspended temporarily, but had anything worse happened, such as disbarment, the bar would have been embarrassed by a whole LOT of media attention into restoring Lawyer Hughes' bar card. There is no indication that Lawyer Hughes was intimidated by his client into keeping his counsel until the client died, which would have been the one possible justification for not passing on the information that would have released the wrongly convicted man. There is also no indication that he tried to persuade his client to confess or to let him (Hughes) off the hook with respect to lawyer/client confidentiality, but those would have been possible alternatives to doing nothing. This is reminiscent of Mr. Bumble in "Oliver Twist" who famously said, "The law is a ###." That wrongly convicted man's life is ruined. If he had been severely physically injured, all measures would have been taken to save his life, even if the injury was his fault, such as driving badly or standing on a rickety ladder. But no one wants to save his mental life ruined by incarceration. Even when Lawyer Hughes has wasted 22 years of this man's life, the court and the state bar association still didn't get it. Lawyer Hughes was finally forgiven for breaking lawyer/client confidentiality after the client died, but the wrongly convicted man still is incarcerated. In other words, a moral and ethical cluster mess-up.

  Reply

• July 4, 2008 by D.S

  To all who have replied thus far - very well put. Mr. Hunt should be freed. I wouldn't even think that since the other client is dead, his name needs to be exposed. Just to admit that Mr. Hunt was imprisoned wrongly and to set him free would suffice - would it not? Twenty-two years in for something you didn't do, the truth comes out, and you're still in. What would that do to one's mental state?? “...means he is incompetent to do his job by accurately and fairly judging the truth and upholding justice." Agreed, and very well put.

  Reply

  • March 16, 2010 by Karla

    To me it wouldn't have been an issue. I do support the attorney client privilege up to a point, however in this case, I would have HAD to say to heck with my career. To work in a system that would support knowingly keeping an innocent man in prison would not be worth working in. I would have happily gone immediately to the authorities and if it meant I would be disbarred than so be it. There is a lot of talk about how messed up our insurance system is in this country, but to me a lot worse is our judicial system where it seems the goal is to protect the guilty over the rights of the innocent.

    Reply

• August 7, 2008 by L.C.

  Laws were made to be broken. It's clearly up to that judge at that time. Another judge may not see it that way. I am a firm believer that the truth will set you free, maybe not today, but some day!!!

  Reply

• November 9, 2008 by JLJ

  Have you heard about the Charlotte 12? Twelve people in Charlotte, NC were found guilty of conspiracy to sell drugs based on "hearsay", false allegations, no evidence, no priors all of which was packaged by an ambitious prosecutor running for office. Their sentences ranged from 15-years to life in prison without parole. They never had a chance because of lack of funds, poor legal representation and hidden exculpatory evidence never introduced. If this can happen to them, it could happen to any of us. There must be some law firm or someone interested in justice and willing to pursue a wrongful incarceration case and civil violation for the innocent. If anyone knows of a law firm with a successful track record of clearing innocent people - we would pray that you will contact us. Best regards! Jennifer

  Reply

• December 21, 2008 by angie marcus

  This shows what kind of justice system this state has but when this guy appeals it and has the attorney brought in as a witness and wins his freedom this state will be another static of man sues for wrongful incrimination wrongful detaining look for this guy to win millions but the sad part is he will struggle learning all the new stuff and additions to his county/state. PEOPLE SHOULD START WRITING THE STATE GOVERNMENT IF THEY WANNA SEE THIS MAN WALK FREE ONLY A GOVERNMENT CAN OVER RIDE A JUDGE’S DECISION. HE MIGHT BE OUT OF TIME ON APPEALS OR THEY WERE DENIED WHICH IS VERY SAD IN THIS CASE. NO MAN SHOULD BE HELD IF THEY DID NOT COMMIT THE CRIME.

  Reply

  • April 8, 2009 by joni

    Angie, I admire your tenacity. My husband was just sentenced to 33 years for borrowing money. He's 53 years old and is serving his terms consecutively, which means that he has to do one and then the other. I am in process of initiating a federal investigation against the county. I also want to create a website in honor and in hopes that other people will read my story and help. Will you read it?

    Reply

• December 30, 2008 by

  For a man to be wrongfully sent to prison? Doesn't that constitute as some sort of abuse? Can't attorney-client privilege be broken if the client says he is gonna hurt someone or himself or does that just apply to doctor-patient?

  Reply

• January 12, 2009 by

  I feel this law should be revisited and redefined to include language which would free an innocent person based on the admission of the guilty party, especially after death. Isn't the attorney bound by law to do his part to ensure that the laws are applied equally and justly?

  Reply

• January 14, 2009 by

  If Hughes truly believed this man could be innocent, then the correct action would have been to follow through on his gut instinct. Knowingly allowing a man to rot in prison, while he remained on the outside world, shows that Hughes has difficulty with his own morality. This will plague him for the rest of his life because he never acted, and always wished he had. What sort of life is that when two lives are wasted by the simple inaction and fear of one man? His image, as he looks in the mirror each day, will turn into the one that is imprisoned. At least this man that is in jail knows nothing of the possibility of freedom he may have had, at least he has grown accustomed to his fate, while Hughes is in a prison he has usurped by his own indulgence.

  Reply

• January 15, 2009 by

  Will it profit a man, to stay idly by, save his soul, abide by the law while some one ruts in jail for a crime he/she did not commit. If Mr. Lawyer is a smart Lawyer, he will find a way to save the innocent without negative repercussions to himself. Let him do his home work unless he subscribes to a life of inconsequentiality to which his soul will always cry for help.

  Reply

Tell us what you think.