How is Biden’s lawyers turning the documents over not a material breach of client-attorney confidentiality and a violation of the 5th, 6th Amendments?
<p>If a client confessed to plans, in-going activity or intent to commit a crime, an attorney may disengage.</p>
<p>I would argue imposing a duty on an attorney to disclose their reasons if it requires court approval would be a violation of prohibition against self-incrimination.</p>
<p>But I cannot wrap my head around how is Biden’s Attorney’s turning over the 10 classified documents to the DoJ not a violation of attorney-client confidentiality?</p>
<p>Maybe one can argue that the in-going off-site storage of them is an implied plan(?), but if an attorney doesn’t have a duty to give all doubt to their client to formulate all potentially effective defenses that the prosecution would have to overcome, then who does?</p>
<p>Following this logic, The attorneys should have simply presumed error. Which seems a reasonable presumption since the documents weren’t “found” missing out of their binders or folders like in Trumps case. They don’t seem to fit a consistent narrative of wrong doing since it includes both ally information (UK) and adversary stuff (Iran etc.).</p>
<p>And even if it did, why would he not return it or hand them over all together?</p>
<p>The attorneys (ridiculous to even have to discuss it in this angel) had no probable cause of wrong doing.</p>
<p>They should have simply returned it to those departments that were to keep them safe instead of effectively reporting their client.</p>
<p>Question:</p>
<p>Is there a case law exception carved out of the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition of self-incrimination for criminal conduct related to documents classified as confidential or affecting national security?</p>
<p>If so, how is political persecution can be safe guarded on false treason and similar charges? (You just need to have your own attorneys “turnover” some documents in your behalf, and no one’s ever going to believe you — not assuming that is the case here, rather that Biden recklessly handled those documents)</p>
<p>UPDATE: The initial reports were wrong. POTUS’ attorneys did NOT give the documents to the DoJ, but appropriately gave them to the National Archived; Biden made a statement to this effect which, unless in the hypothetical, made the question moot. The attorneys hence made no implied statement to implicate POTUS wrong doing by choosing to return the docs to DoJ as though a form of reporting crime, but returned the documents to the Archives implicating no wrong doing on their client’s part.</p>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1612957313882546177?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1612957313882546177%7Ctwgr%5Eed9a777d21a0ba68437b041d1c9cd33201072ceb%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fbiden-surprised-by-discovery-of-classified-documents-in-old-office-2023-1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Statement</a></p>

<p>Documents are not protected under the 5th Amendment, so a person can be compelled to produce documents that may incriminate them. The person cannot be forced to testify against themselves, however – they can invoke their right to not testify against themselves. The <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">attorney-client privilege</a> canon has some exceptions, for example</p>
<p>(4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer's compliance with these Rules</p>
<p>or</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is
reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial
interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the
client has used or is using the lawyer's services</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(bearing in mind that POTUS is required by law to turn all documents over to the national Archives, so turning the records over is &quot;compliance with the law&quot; and a think that an attorney would do for their client, though this event is quite belated).</p>
<p>No subpoena was issued and no testimony was given, so the Fifth Amendment is irrelevant.</p>

us-constitution fifth-amendment us-president sixth-amendment