Hughes v. Meade

Kentucky Court of Appeals · 1970 · Evidence

453 S.W.2d 538 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceAttorney-client privilegeContemptclient identityprofessional capacitylegal serviceagent or conduitstolen property

Facts

During a criminal trial involving the theft of an IBM typewriter, the petitioner attorney testified that a certain party called and employed him to arrange the return of property to the Lexington Police Department without involving him. He contacted a police official, had the property left on his porch, and police retrieved a boxed IBM typewriter from there. When asked the name of the individual who employed him for this service, he refused to answer. The trial court held him in contempt, and he claimed the information was protected by attorney-client privilege under KRS 421.210(4).

Issue

Whether an attorney may refuse to disclose the identity of the person who employed him to facilitate delivery of stolen property to police on the ground that the person's identity was a privileged attorney-client communication. Also, whether the contempt order enforcing disclosure was proper.

Rule

Attorney-client privilege protects communications made to an attorney in his professional character by a client, but the privilege is strictly confined within narrow limits because it obstructs disclosure of the truth. A client's identity is generally not privileged, although special circumstances may justify protection when the attorney was retained to render a legal opinion, perform a legal service, or provide representation in legal proceedings and the disclosure of identity is incident to that professional employment. If the attorney was acting merely as an agent, conduit, or in a nonprofessional capacity, the privilege does not apply.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Louisville, attorney Dana Mercer receives a subpoena during a burglary trial. Dana testifies that an unknown caller paid her to pick up a duffel bag from a bus station locker and leave it with a police sergeant, and that she gave no legal advice and was hired only for that handoff.

May Dana refuse to identify the person who hired her on attorney-client privilege grounds?

Explanation. The majority rule is that client identity is generally not privileged, and any exception depends on the lawyer having been retained to render legal advice, perform a legal service, or provide representation in legal proceedings. Here Dana was hired only to transfer property and gave no legal advice or representation, so she acted merely as an agent or conduit. Under the majority's narrow construction of privilege, the identity is not protected.