attorney-client-privilege
Does attorney-client privilege protect a client who lies about his attorney?
<p>In many legal conflicts the fact that a defendant acted on the advice of competent legal counsel is considered an affirmative defense, or at least a mitigating factor.</p>

<p>Can such a defendant hide behind attorney-client privilege to lie about advice his attorney provided?  I.e., does an attorney have an obligation to object to such a lie if made aware of it (even though that would amount to accusing his client of perjury)?  Or, can an attorney be put under oath and compelled to testify against his client in such an event?</p>

<p>Clarification: This is not pertaining to a situation in which the Client is antagonizing the Attorney.  Suppose, rather, that the Client at some point asked of the Attorney, "Give me your professional advice on X."  The Attorney responds with, "My advice is Y."  The Client instead does Z, gets into legal trouble, and  in his defense claims, "My Attorney advised in scenario X to do Z."</p>

<p>It's no fantastic legal source, and rules may vary in different countries, but from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege#Disclosure_ostensibly_to_support_lawyer.27s_own_interests" rel="nofollow">the Wikipedia article on Attorney client privilege</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Lawyers may also breach the duty where they are defending themselves
  against disciplinary or legal proceedings. A client who initiates
  proceedings against a lawyer effectively waives rights to
  confidentiality. This is justified on grounds of procedural fairness—a
  lawyer unable to reveal information relating to the retainer would be
  unable to defend themselves against such action.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, if the client's lie is related to one of the lawyer's interests (for example, if the client sues the attorney for malpractice based on the advice he was given), the lawyer can break privilege on his own behalf, thus testifying that his client lied.  </p>

<p>As to the specific case you brought up, I would say that privilege wouldn't protect the client from the lawyer discussing things never brought up. In other words, we could force the attorney to testify, since one of two things is true:</p>

<ol>
<li>The attorney really did give him that advice, in which case the client has already voluntarily given up his right to confidentiality by describing what was said between them, or</li>
<li>The lawyer never gave him that advice, and privilege wouldn't protect a conversation between the two that never transpired.</li>
</ol>

<p><a href="http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information.html" rel="noreferrer">Model Rule 1.6(b)(5)</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a
  client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary... to
  respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's
  representation of the client.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and Comment 10, in part:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Where a legal claim or disciplinary charge alleges <strong>complicity of the
  lawyer in a client's conduct</strong> or other misconduct of the lawyer
  involving representation of the client, the <strong>lawyer may respond to
  the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to establish a
  defense</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>
