Legal Definitions - last-link doctrine

The last-link doctrine is a legal principle that allows an attorney to withhold certain information, even if that information itself is not directly protected by attorney-client privilege, if revealing it would indirectly expose information that isprivileged. This doctrine is particularly relevant when disclosing the seemingly non-privileged information would provide the crucial "last link" of evidence needed to accuse or convict the client of a crime, thereby undermining the fundamental protection of the attorney-client relationship. It acts as an exception to the general rule that certain basic facts, like a client's identity, are typically not privileged.

Here are some examples to illustrate the last-link doctrine:

• Example 1: Unique Item Connection

  A client is under investigation for manufacturing illegal narcotics. Authorities have found a clandestine lab containing a very specific, unusual piece of equipment that is rare and difficult to obtain. They suspect the client but lack direct evidence. The authorities subpoena the client's attorney, asking if the client ever sought legal advice regarding the purchase or import of this specific type of equipment. While the mere act of seeking advice on purchasing equipment isn't inherently privileged, if the attorney confirms such a consultation, it would provide the "last link" connecting the client directly to the unique manufacturing setup, thereby implicating them in the drug operation.

  How it illustrates the doctrine: The fact that a client sought advice on purchasing equipment is not, on its face, privileged. However, in this scenario, confirming that the client sought advice about this specific, rare equipment would directly link them to the unique drug lab, providing the "last link" of evidence needed for an indictment. This would effectively reveal privileged information about the client's involvement in illegal activities.

• Example 2: Location or Timing Confirmation

  A client is suspected of a high-profile art theft that occurred at a very specific, remote gallery at an unusual time. Police have surveillance footage of a unique, custom-painted vehicle leaving the scene but cannot identify the driver. They issue a subpoena for the client's attorney to confirm if the client owns a specific, rare model of car and if the client ever discussed having it custom-painted in a particular way. The attorney knows the client owns that exact car, had it custom-painted as described, and discussed these details in confidence. While car ownership and custom paint jobs aren't typically privileged, in this specific context, confirming these details would be the "last link" connecting the client to the getaway vehicle and thus the theft, effectively revealing privileged information about the client's involvement.

  How it illustrates the doctrine: The details of car ownership and its appearance are not inherently privileged. However, confirming these specific, unique details for the police would directly provide the missing piece of evidence (the "last link") to identify the client as the thief, which is information protected by the attorney-client privilege.