Tribune. The confidences that citizens make their lawyers constitute the base of the rights of the defense. Without protecting the secrecy of these, no citizen, elected, undertaking or natural person is guaranteed that he will be free to be able to consult a lawyer to protect his rights. By imposing the lawyers with the obligation to respect the secret of the confidences entrusted to them, they can reassure the worried litigants who seek advice in any field (creation of company, estate strategy or matrimonial, protection of the property intellectual, conclusion of contracts, hiring or dismissal of an employee, negotiation of a conventional break, etc.) or the simple defense of their interests in court.
The professional secret of the lawyer vis-à-vis his client or future customer is therefore a compelling guarantee of the rule of law, because the lawyer does not protect “his” secret, but that of his clients . The lawyer can not be relieved of this secret by anyone, he must respect him all his life. Any impairment is sanctioned criminally and ethically.
In a rare manner, the law sometimes authorizes the lifting of secrecy, while the most commonly allowed exceptions concern the lawyers who participate in an offense or encourage one of their clients to commit one, in which case the professional secrecy is not opposable to investigation services and the courts. Thus, the exchanges or confidences whose lawyer is recipient are protected from external intrusions, which allows him to usefully orient his client towards the most appropriate solution, in accordance with the legal provisions and to his particular situation.
Artificial distinction
However, the judges have gradually attempted to limit the scope of the professional secrecy of the lawyer by operating an artificial distinction between the counseling and defense activities, and that in perfect contradiction with the law of 31 December 1971, which provides that this secret applies “in all subjects, whether in the field of the Council or the defense”. By this artifice, the judges wanted to open a breach to allow the investigators to seize confidential documents, sent to the lawyer or exchanged by his client, under a consulting activity (so outside of any litigation). or to capture the exchanges between the lawyer and his client.
However, the border between counseling and jurisdictional defense activities is, by principle, porous. Infringement of professional counseling secrecy is likely to significantly limit defense tools before the courts. It was therefore imperative that through a law wishing to restore the confidence of citizens in their justice this secret is reaffirmed as a general principle inherent in the rule of law, applicable in any matter and offering citizens the opportunity to solicit A legal advice with a lawyer without fear of self-incriminating, so that the latter can orient it in accordance with the law. It was, unanimously, the National Assembly by adopting an amendment to Article 3 of the Bill for Confidence in the Judicial Institution.
You have 50.68% of this article to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.