Disclosing damning information as a lawyer
<p>Let's say I'm a defense lawyer and my client is a criminal that killed 50 people so far, but got away with it every single time, and he's on trial for a 51st, which he's also poised to escape because there's no evidence pointing directly to him.</p>

<p>As his lawyer, he told me about all of his murders, and he gave me information that the police can verify that can link him to all 51 murders.</p>

<p>Here's a concrete example: he took a video of all of his murders, and he hid all the recordings so that the police cannot find them, but he told me (his lawyer) about them and exactly where they are.</p>

<p>If I break client confidentiality and tell the police everything I know, and give them all the evidence they need to 100% link him to all 51 crimes, is he going to walk free because I "didn't follow procedure"?</p>

<p>If so, then the legal system is really effed up...</p>

<p>Just a little discussion I had with a friend, neither of us have any legal education.</p>

<h2>The evidence will almost certainly be inadmissible</h2>
<p>And, of course, you will be disbarred and never work as a lawyer again, you might also go to jail for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Whether the person is convicted or not will depend on the strength of the other evidence the state has.</p>
<p>In the notorious case of <a href="https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/27767-lawyer-x-and-paul-dale-the-story-of-dirty-tricks-cover-ups-and-corruption" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Lawyer X</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Gobbo" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nicola Gobbo</a> was acting as a barrister for a number of Melbourne underworld figures while simultaneously acting as a police informer. A number of those convicted have successfully appealed their convictions on the basis that they didn’t get a fair trial.</p>
<p>In their judgement on AB (a pseudonym) v. CD (a pseudonym); EF (a pseudonym) v. CD (a pseudonym) <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2018/58.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">[2018] HCA 58</a> the High Court said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>But where, as here, the agency of police informer has been so abused as to corrupt the criminal justice system, there arises a greater public interest in disclosure to which the public interest in informer anonymity must yield.</p>
<p>EF's actions in purporting to act as counsel for the Convicted Persons while covertly informing against them were fundamental and appalling breaches of EF's obligations as counsel to her clients and of EF's duties to the court. Likewise, Victoria Police were guilty of reprehensible conduct in knowingly encouraging EF to do as she did and were involved in sanctioning atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer to discharge all duties imposed on them faithfully and according to law without favour or affection, malice or ill-will. As a result, the prosecution of each Convicted Person was corrupted in a manner which debased fundamental premises of the criminal justice system.</p>
</blockquote>

lawyer murder attorney-client-privilege confidentiality