STATE v. McDERMOTTNo. 94-461.
72 Ohio St.3d 570 (1995)
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT,
McDERMOTT; LAWRENCE, APPELLEE.
McDERMOTT; LAWRENCE, APPELLEE.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted April 4, 1995.
Decided July 26, 1995.
Anthony G. Pizza, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and J. Christopher Anderson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. Cooper, Walinski & Cramer and Richard Walinski; Kaplan, Richardson, Rost & Helmick and Jon D. Richardson, for appellee. Harvey B. Bruner & Associates, Harvey B. Bruner and Bret Jordan, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey and Terri-Lynne B. Smiles, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio State Medical Association. Kaplan & Lipson and Samuel Z. Kaplan; David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Gloria Eyerly and Barbara Farnbacher, Assistant Public Defenders, urging affirmance for amici curiae, Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Office of the Ohio Public Defender. Charles G. Hallinan; Dinsmore & Shohl and Mark A Vander Loan; Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick and Thomas G. Pletz, urging affirmance for amici curiae, Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Daniel E. Pilarczyk, Archbishop, and Catholic Diocese of Toledo.
Albert L. Bell and Eugene P. Whetzel, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio State Bar Association.
In Ohio, attorneys, as well as other professionals, have presumed that professional discussions with clients may not later be the subject of testimony by that professional, even when the client has told a third person what was discussed. A contrary view, however, is apparent from paragraph one of the syllabus of State v. Post (1987),
In Swetland, this court analyzed G.C. 11494, the predecessor to R.C. 2317.02. The appellant requested that the court judicially extend the statute to provide for an additional waiver of the testimonial privilege. Although that statute provided only two circumstances by which the client could waive the privilege, the client's express consent or the client's testifying on the same subject, the appellant urged the court to adopt the further exception of allowing the client's personal representative or heirs to waive the privilege when the client is deceased. As the language of the statute was comprehensive, this court ruled that the General Assembly may broaden the statutory exceptions which constituted waiver of the privileged communications but that the courts should not augment the enumerated
The General Assembly has plainly and distinctly stated that the privileges of R.C. 2317.02 are to be given effect absent specific statutory exceptions. State v. Smorgala (1990),
In Post, an attorney employed a polygraph examiner as his agent. The client of the attorney submitted to a polygraph examination without his attorney present, and in the course of the examination, confessed in writing to a crime. The client later told a third party about his confession to the polygraph examiner. The trial court ruled that the written statement as well as the polygraph examiner's testimony was admissible because the client's disclosure to the third party waived any privilege. The client appealed, asserting that the polygraph examiner's testimony should not have been allowed into evidence. This court found the client's discussion with the polygraph examiner privileged but also found that privilege waived when the client revealed the content of the privileged communication to a third party. At common law, the attorney-client privilege could be waived either expressly or by conduct implying waiver. See 8 Wigmore, Evidence (McNaughton Rev.1961), Section 2327.
The statute that controls the case before us is R.C. 2317.02(A), which states:
"The following persons shall not testify in certain respects:
"(A) An attorney, concerning a communication made to him by his client in that relation or his advice to his client, except that the attorney may testify by express consent of the client * * * and except that, if the client voluntarily testifies * * * the attorney may be compelled to testify on the same subject." (Emphasis added.)
In Weis v. Weis (1947), 147 Ohio St. 416, 34 O.O. 350, 72 N.E.2d 245, paragraph four of the syllabus, we held that G.C. 11494 (the predecessor to R.C. 2317.02) affords "protection only to those relationships which are specifically named therein." After that decision, the General Assembly adopted R.C. 2317.021, which defines the term "client," as used in the privilege statute, to include the client's "agent, employee, or representative." The definition of the term "attorney" has not been amended to include an agent, employee, or representative of
We, therefore, distinguish Post from the present case. In the case before us, Attorney Lawrence refused to testify based on R.C. 2317.02(A) because here the discussions were directly between the attorney and the client. Post, however, involved the agent of an attorney, a polygrapher. When the client confessed to the polygrapher, the attorney was not present.
To the extent that paragraph one of the syllabus of Post is overbroad and would affect the statutory attorney-client privilege by adding a waiver not enumerated in R.C. 2317.02(A), we modify it. The syllabus of a Supreme Court opinion is not to be construed as being broader than the facts of that specific case warrant. Williamson Heater Co. v. Radich (1934), 128 Ohio St. 124, 126, 190 N.E. 403, 404; DeLozier v. Sommer (1974),
As we decline to add a judicially created waiver to the statutorily created privilege, we hold that R.C. 2317.02(A) provides the exclusive means by which privileged communications directly between an attorney and a client can be waived. Lawrence's act of refusing to testify was not contemptuous because McDermott had not waived the attorney-client privilege—he neither expressly consented to Lawrence's testifying nor did he voluntarily testify on the same subject.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, FAIN and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.
MIKE FAIN, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting for RESNICK, J.
Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.
- No Cases Found