# State v. Lewis

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · July 25, 2008 · 36 So. 3d 72

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9784477

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Gerald Patrick Lewis (In Re: STATE of Alabama v. Gerald Patrick LEWIS)
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** July 25, 2008
- **Citations:** 36 So. 3d 72; 2008 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 123; 2008 WL 2854805
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Shaw
- **Judges:** McMillan, Welch, Shaw, Wise, Baschab
- **Cited by:** 4 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/9784477

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that, by alleging "ineffective assistance of counsel during the trial and direct appeal of these cases, the defendant waived the benefits of both the attorney-client privilege and the work product privilege, but only with respect to matters relevant to his allegations o…
- finding a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the postconviction proceeding waived the attorney-client privilege as to matters relevant to his allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel
- noting th~t, by alleging "ineffective ~i_stai

## Opinion text

SHAW, Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the result.
Although I agree with most of the analysis in Part I of the main opinion, I note that, in my view, this Court’s holding is dictated by State v. Click, 768 So.2d 417, 421 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), in which we held *81 that “[a] postconviction petitioner who raises a Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective assistance of counsel ‘waives the attorney-client privilege as to matters reasonably related to the claim of inadequate representation.’ ” In Click , this Court, quoting Charles W. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence, § 394.01(3) (5th ed.1996), went on to state:
“ ‘If the client charges the attorney with misconduct, the privilege is lifted insofar as is necessary to enable the attorney to combat the charge. This would necessarily mean that the client could not base a lawsuit against the attorney upon the negligence of the attorney’s advice and then object when the attorney attempts to testify as to the attorney’s own version of what was said. This would open the door, of course, to only so much of the privileged matter that is relevant and necessary to the attorney’s defense.” ’
768 So.2d at 422 . Therefore, I concur in the result as to part I.
I concur as to Part II.
WISE, J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9784477. Public record. Not legal advice.