# Brennan v. Brennan

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · September 26, 1980 · 281 Pa. Super. 362

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752461

## Case

- **Full name:** Linda BRENNAN v. David BRENNAN, Appellant. Appeal of Theodore BREAULT, Esquire
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 26, 1980
- **Citations:** 281 Pa. Super. 362; 422 A.2d 510; 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3298
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hoffman
- **Judges:** Cercone, Price, Spaeth, Hester, Cavanaugh, Montgomery, Hoffman
- **Cited by:** 31 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752461

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating where privilege exists for specific purpose; party seeking disclosure has burden of establishing prima facie case that purpose of privilege would be frustrated by exercise of privilege

## Opinion text

HOFFMAN, Judge,
concurring:
Although joining in the majority opinion, I believe it appropriate to comment further on the specific nature of the attorney-client privilege. That privilege represents a time-tested accommodation between the client’s welfare and interest and the effective administration of justice. The comment to Rule 1.7 of the proposed ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct illustrates the nature of this accommodation:
Defining the scope of the duty to disclose a client’s confidences is most difficult. On the one hand, the client expects that matters imparted to a lawyer will be kept confidential. On the other hand, in becoming privy to client confidences a lawyer may foresee that the client intends serious and perhaps irreparable harm to another person. To the extent a lawyer is prohibited from making disclosure, the interests of the potential victim are sacrificed in favor of preserving the client’s confidences even though the client’s purpose is wrongful. However, to the extent a lawyer is required to disclose a client’s purposes, the client may be inhibited from revealing facts which would enable the lawyer to counsel against a wrongful course of action. Any rule governing disclosure of threatened harm involves balancing the interests of one group of potential victims against those of another. On the assumption that lawyers generally fulfill their duty to advise against the commission of a deliberately wrongful act, the public is better protected if full disclosure by the client is encouraged than if it is inhibited. .
*379 As that comment indicates, courts must be mindful that limitations on the privilege may result in a client’s reluctance to disclose relevant information to his attorney. Nevertheless, courts must balance the interests of the client against the potential harm to others. This is particularly so in a child custody case where the child’s best interests are of paramount importance. Consequently, if the party seeking to overcome the privilege establishes that the child’s interests require disclosure of the information which the client asserts is privileged, the privilege must yield.
Because the present record is insufficient to permit us to make that determination, I agree with the majority’s decision to remand the case for further proceedings.
SPAETH, J., joins in this opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752461. Public record. Not legal advice.