Secrets

The December issue of The Atlantic has a short essay by Bill Simon on attorney-client confidentiality – part of his on-going jeremiad against it. It is immediately followed by a piece arguing for reporter shield laws. The editors must have been amused by the juxtaposition, and I am happy to report that I was as well. On interesting aspect of the two essays is that each is premised on empirical claims yet none of the positions – to my knowledge – have ever been subjected to testing. The basic idea behind the attorney client privilege is that it enhances communications and allows attorneys to counsel clients to abide by the law. Simon argues that there is little or no such effect. I don’t know of any testing one way or the other on the question (and I doubt it would be practicable). The essay on reporter shields also talks about how confidentiality results in disclosures which inure to the public good, disclosures which are in danger of drying up without a shield. Again, no one, to my knowledge, has ever tested the claim. All of the scenarios are plausible, which means that the arguments are, in a curious sense, speculative.

 

The NY Times Book Review included a long review of the new book by Ms. Robinson: Gilead. I read only as far as the second column where I hit the following phrase by the reviewer: “fierce calm.” Holy West Wing Bat-writer! Stones and bones! 

I can’t see caring about a review by one who writes so badly.  The book has, however, been reviewed in just about every magazine on earth – it is even mentioned in Gourmet.