I think in the end it comes down to possession being 9/10ths of the law. As far as that Supreme Court ruling the “custodial” firm seems to have hung its hat on is concerned – I’ve forgotten the citation at this point but we discussed it here awhile back, it had to do with the late Vincent Foster. If memory serves, the only thing that ruling really
said was that an attorney of record cannot be forced to effectively violate attorney/client privilege despite the fact that the client is deceased.
The business about who may have
access to the Robinson files actually makes sense. It would only be a real issue (legally and ethically) if the attorney who read the files decided to squeal. If said squealage were to occur, the attorney could face professional penalties at the least.
A
current edition of the Rules of Professional Conduct which apply to lawyers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts may be found at
http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/rpcnet.htm
As far as the sentencing question is concerned, if we could find an 1893 or so edition of the General Laws of Massachusetts, there might be clues (indeed
should be clues) in there. For example, see
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/274-7.htm for
modern penalties.
I staid the night for shelter at a farm behind the mountains, with a mother and son - two "old-believers." They did all the talking...
- Robert Frost