People v. Canfield

In People v. Canfield (1974) 12 Cal.3d 699, the privilege was held applicable to the contents of a financial eligibility form which the defendant in that case signed at the jailhouse during a preliminary interview with a legal aide representing the public defender. The court reasoned as follows: "It is clear from the circumstances under which the statement was given that it was given in confidence (see Evid. Code, 952) and that defendant's purpose was to retain the public defender to represent him in the criminal proceedings against him. Under sections 951 and 954 of the Evidence Code, therefore, any disclosures made by defendant in the course of the interview were privileged and could not be revealed without his consent. The lawyer-client privilege is, indeed, so extensive that where a person seeks the assistance of an attorney with a view to employing him professionally, any information acquired by the attorney is privileged whether or not actual employment results. " (12 Cal.3d at pp. 704-705.)