Here is a post from Legal Blogwatch:
Here is a scenario that sounds like a law school exam question.
It was after midnight when the client began to leave a series of
six messages on the lawyer's answering machine. In the first, the
client said that he knew the home address of the Juvenile Court judge
hearing his care and protection case and that she had two children. In
the fourth message, the client's wife could be heard saying she and the
client were going to "raise some hell." In the fifth, the client said,
"some people need to be exterminated with prejudice."
Over the next week, the lawyer saw the client become increasingly
angry. The lawyer asked to withdraw from the case and then told the
judge of the client's threats against her.
After investigating, prosecutors initiated grand jury
proceedings against the former client and subpoenaed the lawyer to
testify. The lawyer moved to quash, citing attorney-client privilege.
The trial court judge denied the motion, reasoning that the client's
threatening messages were not privileged because they had nothing to do
with obtaining legal services. The lawyer appealed. How should the
appeals court rule
While you are there, drop down further to this post: Electronic Discovery and Facebook, which posts about Leduc v. Roman.
I have been able to make great use of MySpace, Facebook, and other internet posts by witnesses and alleged victims of a crime charged against my clients. You will be surprised what information the prosecution's witnesses have on their "websites." Some of that information can be useful in cross-examination or for leads.
For example, in a recent spouse assault case the wife had been on line with "ExpertLaw.com" seeking legal advice on how she and her U.K. boyfriend could get his immigration status to the U.S. changed and they could get married as soon as possible. Suffice it to say, this lead to a motive to lie, which in turn lead to some compelling cross-examination, which lead to an acquittal on a number of assault charges and obstruction of justice. Obviously you will run into the usual problems trying to cite Canadian cases as a basis for discovery, but . . .