The Lawyer got permission from the client to search the clients house in case there was incriminating evidence, and the search team found the videotapes.

Hmm, it's a bit analagous to the client giving the attorney the murder weapon. I'd think that it's a case where if you have to worry about whether there is privilege, assume it attaches. As I recall, the only exceptions to privilege (and this varies by jurisdiction) are if there is if the attorney believes that there is imminent harm to another person.

I can't believe I am taking the bar again. Anyway, I think that if the lawyer had found a gun, he would have to turn it over. So a videotape is an object, not a communication (or so the prosecutor would argue). At least that's how I would write a bar question on the topic. (of course, you could also argue that the tape was a communication somehow. Although why a clent would ask an attorney to search his house when guilty, I don't know.)

eta: not any gun but as Vortex says, the murder weapon gun.

Without going into detail, the client was incredibly foolish and entitled. As I understand it, this is not unknown with real life criminal defendants. Basically, I think the defendant assume his attorney would find and destroy any incriminating evidence.

But just to get it straight, the murder weapon is different? If you have a gun or knife with which a client killed the victim, confidentiality does apply, and the defense attorney is NOT required to turn it into the prosecutor?

Oh no, I think you have to turn in the murder weapon. Or at least I know you can't hold it in your safe and claim ACP protects you from turning it over.

song playing over the end of Castle? anyone?

Oh no, I think you have to turn in the murder weapon. Or at least I know you can't hold it in your safe and claim ACP protects you from turning it over.

So if the client is stupid enough to videotape himself committing a crime and then gives the videotapes along with a bunch of other stuff for the purpose of your avoiding being surprised by the prosecution having evidence you did not know exists, there is no ACP? And you do have to turn it over? Show got the obligation to conceal its existence wrong?

So if the client is stupid enough to videotape himself committing a crime and then gives the videotapes along with a bunch of other stuff for the purpose of your avoiding being surprised by the prosecution having evidence you did not know exists, there is no ACP?

I think a client that stupid needs to be in protective custody to save him from impaling himself on his own butter knives.

I remember a case from law school ethics class that may have something to do with TB's question.

Suspect told his lawyers where two bodies could be found. Lawyers went out, looked at and photographed the bodies, didn't inform the prosecutors.

The end result was, the court found that the lawyers acted ethically (though at least one was found guilty of something -- possibly desecrating a corpse -- because he'd moved one of the bodies). However, lawyers' careers were pretty much destroyed due to public outcry.

Here's an article about the case.

Canadians may remember - didn't they find some of Bernardo and Holmolka's tapes hidden in the ceiling panels of their lawyer's office?