The 'Reel' Legal Question
“I Know Who Committed the Crime… But I Cannot Tell You.”
When protecting your client's secrets could mean leaving an innocent person behind bars.
Sehmani KingSun-Leo - Moot Court - Seneca York Campus
When Justice and Privilege Collide
An advanced Canadian legal ethics and criminal litigation challenge inspired by The Lincoln Lawyer (2011).
Welcome back to another edition of The “Reel” Legal Question!
This month, we are exploring one of the most uncomfortable questions a legal professional may ever face.
What happens when you know something that could free an innocent person, but the law may prohibit you from revealing it?
In The Lincoln Lawyer, criminal defence attorney Mickey Haller finds himself entangled in a troubling situation involving a client, a violent crime, and another man who may have been wrongfully convicted.
The film presents an extraordinary dilemma. Haller's client, Louis Roulet, makes an incriminating admission about an earlier murder while invoking the protection of attorney-client privilege. The encounter also raises concerns about Haller's personal safety and that of his family.
Now, imagine a similar situation unfolding in Ontario, Canada.
Not Hollywood. Not an American courtroom.
A Canadian criminal proceeding where professional obligations, the Charter, and the possibility of wrongful conviction collide.
Let's examine the law, challenge our assumptions, and see how prepared we really are.
WATCH the following clip and engage with the legal question below!
Movie: The Lincoln Lawyer (2011)
Featured scene: The confrontation between Mickey Haller and Louis Roulet involving an admission of murder, attorney-client privilege, and an implied threat to Haller's family.
Watch the scene before reading the fictional case scenario.
Keywords: The Reel Legal Question, KingSun Law, The Lincoln Lawyer, Legal Movies, Canadian Criminal Law, Solicitor-Client Privilege, Lawyer-Client Confidentiality, Legal Ethics, Professional Responsibility, Wrongful Convictions, Innocence at Stake, Criminal Defence, Attorney-Client Privilege, Client Confessions, Confidential Communications, Duty of Confidentiality, Public Safety Exception, Smith v Jones, R v McClure, Charter Rights, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 7 Charter, Section 11(d) Charter, Fair Trial Rights, Miscarriage of Justice, Disclosure Obligations, Conflict of Interest, Withdrawal from Representation, Law Society of Ontario, Rules of Professional Conduct, Ethical Dilemmas, Administration of Justice, Criminal Evidence, Privileged Evidence, Physical Evidence, Judicial Intervention, Legal Advocacy, Criminal Litigation Strategy, Lawyer's Duty to the Court, Client Loyalty, Legal Decision Making, Legal Analysis, Critical Thinking, Advanced Legal Reasoning, Canadian Jurisprudence, Legal Education, Law Students, Paralegal Education, Legal Professionals, Courtroom Ethics, Access to Justice, Legal Accountability, Wrongful Conviction Review, Innocence and Justice, Legal Professional Development, Legal Debate, Legal Case Studies, Justice System, Ontario Lawyers, Ontario Paralegals, Legal Research, KingSun Law Paralegal Services
The Scenario: A Confession That Changes Everything
You are an Ontario criminal defence lawyer with 15 years of experience. You have been retained to represent a wealthy technology entrepreneur charged with aggravated assault under section 268 of the Criminal Code.
Your client maintains that he acted in self-defence.
The trial is scheduled to commence in six weeks.
During a confidential meeting, your client unexpectedly tells you that he committed a murder six years earlier.
Another individual, Daniel Brooks, was convicted of that murder and is currently serving a life sentence.
Your client provides details that were never publicly disclosed, including the location of a distinctive personal item belonging to the deceased.
He then makes the following statement:
“You cannot tell anyone. You're my lawyer. That's what privilege means.”
Before leaving your office, he casually mentions your daughter's school and the time she normally finishes her extracurricular activities.
You have never provided him with that information.
The Additional Evidence
Your investigation reveals the following:
Daniel Brooks was convicted largely on circumstantial evidence.
His appeal was dismissed three years ago.
A witness who identified Brooks has since recanted.
A forensic report contains an unexplained DNA profile.
Your client's alleged knowledge of the murder is consistent with non-public investigative information.
You discover a publicly accessible photograph showing your current client near the location of the earlier crime.
There is no evidence that your client intends to commit another murder.
However, you believe his reference to your daughter may have been a deliberate threat.
The Complication
Daniel Brooks' family has recently contacted your office seeking assistance with a wrongful conviction review.
They do not know that you represent the person who may have committed the murder.
You now possess information that could potentially change two criminal proceedings and an innocent person's future.
But can you legally use it?
THE CENTRAL QUESTION
If revealing your client's confession could free a potentially innocent person, would you disclose it, remain silent, seek judicial intervention, or withdraw from representation?
And more importantly:
Which of those decisions would Canadian law actually permit?
This is not simply a question of morality. It requires careful analysis of solicitor-client privilege, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, public safety, and the administration of justice.
PART I — THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
1. Solicitor-Client Privilege: How Far Does Protection Extend?
Canadian law recognizes solicitor-client privilege as a fundamental legal protection.
The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly emphasized the importance of protecting confidential communications between lawyers and their clients.
Sehmani KingSun-Leo Edmonton Law Courts - Law Library - Alberta, February 2026
Consider:
This decision provides foundational guidance on confidential legal communications and the requirements for solicitor-client privilege.
This decision examines the exceptional circumstances in which solicitor-client privilege may yield where an accused person's innocence is at stake.
The Court reaffirmed the importance of strong protection for solicitor-client privilege.
Analytical Challenge 1 — Is Everything Privileged?
Examine these four pieces of information:
A. Your client's confidential admission during legal consultation.
B. A photograph obtained independently from a public website.
C. A physical item belonging to the deceased that your client personally delivers to your office.
D. Your client's statement about your daughter's school.
Your task: Determine whether each item attracts solicitor-client privilege, a professional duty of confidentiality, both protections, or neither.
Consider the difference between an independently existing physical object and a confidential communication about that object.
Difficulty modifier: Assume the client tells you that the physical item has traces of the victim's blood.
Does your answer change?
2. The Innocence-at-Stake Exception
In R. v. McClure, the Supreme Court recognized a narrow innocence-at-stake exception.
However, this does not give legal professionals a general licence to disclose privileged communications whenever they believe another person is innocent.
The legal threshold is exceptionally demanding, and the procedure requires careful judicial supervision.
Analytical Challenge 2 — The Wrongful Conviction Application
Daniel Brooks has exhausted his ordinary appeal rights.
His new lawyer is preparing an application for a miscarriage-of-justice review under the Criminal Code.
You believe your client's confession could support that process.
Answer the following:
Can you voluntarily disclose the confession to Daniel's lawyer?
Who has standing to seek an innocence-at-stake determination?
What preliminary showing must be made before a court considers privileged material?
What alternatives must be considered before privileged communications are accessed?
Can independently obtained evidence provide an alternative route to reopening the conviction?
Advanced requirement: Identify the governing statutory review provisions and the appropriate procedural pathway. Do not assume that an application for ministerial review automatically overrides solicitor-client privilege.
PART II — WHEN CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY MEETS PUBLIC SAFETY
3. The Threat to Your Family
The client's reference to your daughter's school raises a separate issue.
Is it an implied threat?
Is there sufficient evidence of imminent danger?
Could the circumstances justify disclosure of otherwise confidential information?
In Smith v. Jones, [1999] 1 SCR 455, the Supreme Court examined the public safety exception to solicitor-client privilege.
The analysis includes the seriousness, clarity, and imminence of the anticipated harm.
Analytical Challenge 3 — The Public Safety Exception
You must decide whether the following developments justify protective action.
Scenario A: The client mentions your daughter's school without making an express threat.
Scenario B: The client sends you a photograph of your daughter leaving school.
Scenario C: The client states that your daughter will be harmed tomorrow unless you continue representing him.
For each scenario, determine:
Whether the legal threshold for a public safety exception is met.
Whether you should contact police.
What information, if any, could lawfully be disclosed.
Whether independent ethical advice or judicial intervention is required.
Whether you can continue acting for the client.
Critical distinction: Even if a disclosure is justified to prevent imminent harm, does that authorize disclosure of the earlier murder confession to assist Daniel Brooks?
Explain why these are potentially separate legal questions.
PART III — PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CONFLICTS
4. Can You Represent Both Clients?
Daniel Brooks' family offers to retain you.
You decline the retainer temporarily while assessing your obligations.
Your current client insists that you continue representing him.
The issue is no longer simply whether you can disclose confidential information.
It is whether your professional judgment has become materially impaired.
Analytical Challenge 4 — The Conflict Matrix
Prepare a written opinion addressing:
Whether accepting Daniel Brooks as a client would create a conflict of interest.
Whether informed consent could realistically resolve that conflict.
Whether your current client's confidential information prevents meaningful disclosure to Daniel.
Whether withdrawing from your existing retainer would permit you to represent Daniel afterward.
Whether you may refer Daniel to independent counsel without revealing confidential information.
Refer to the Law Society of Ontario's Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly the rules concerning confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and withdrawal.
The difficult question: Does withdrawing from representation eliminate the confidentiality obligations you owe to your former client?
PART IV — ADVANCED LITIGATION STRATEGY
5. You Have 72 Hours to Make a Decision
Your client refuses permission to disclose the confession.
Daniel's family is preparing a public campaign seeking reconsideration of his conviction.
The police have not reopened the murder investigation.
Your client's aggravated assault trial remains scheduled.
Activity 5 — The 72-Hour Litigation Plan
Prepare a professional action plan divided into three stages.
First 24 hours: Immediate risk assessment
Identify the immediate steps required to protect your safety, preserve confidentiality, and obtain independent professional guidance.
Hours 24–48: Legal and evidentiary assessment
Determine which information can be independently investigated and what steps are legally permissible without exploiting confidential client information.
Hours 48–72: Representation and procedural decisions
Determine whether you can continue acting, whether withdrawal is necessary, and what protective steps can be taken without violating professional obligations.
Your plan must address both the client's rights and the administration of justice.
Additional restriction: You cannot assume that withdrawing from representation allows you to disclose previously protected information.
PART V — THE COURTROOM CHALLENGE
6. The Judge Asks a Question You Cannot Answer
During your client's aggravated assault trial, the Crown seeks an adjournment after discovering a possible connection between your client and the earlier murder.
The judge asks whether you possess information relevant to the other investigation.
Your client has expressly instructed you not to disclose the confession.
Activity 6 — Prepare Your Oral Submissions
You have five minutes to address the court.
Prepare submissions that:
Protect solicitor-client privilege.
Avoid misleading the court.
Address any legitimate conflict affecting your ability to continue.
Request only relief supported by the applicable law and evidence.
Avoid unnecessarily confirming or denying the existence of confidential information.
Advanced requirement: Prepare an alternative submission in the event the judge directs you to answer a question that may require disclosure of privileged information.
Explain how you would seek an appropriate judicial determination without unilaterally waiving privilege.
PART VI — THE ETHICAL DEBATE
7. What If the Law and Your Conscience Disagree?
Imagine that Daniel Brooks has already spent six years in prison.
His family has lost their home paying legal expenses.
His children have grown up without him.
Your client, meanwhile, is wealthy, influential, and fully aware that another person may be serving a sentence for his crime.
You believe Daniel is innocent.
Yet your belief does not automatically extinguish the legal protections owed to your client.
Activity 7 — The Debate
Do this activity with your fellow legal colleagues or friends:
Group A — Defend Confidentiality
Argue that solicitor-client privilege must remain protected even where the consequences appear deeply unjust.
Group B — Defend the Wrongfully Convicted
Identify every lawful procedure capable of advancing Daniel's claim of innocence without assuming that privilege can simply be disregarded.
Group C — The Judicial Perspective
Analyze whether a court could authorize access to protected information, under what exceptional circumstances, and with what safeguards.
Each group must present:
A legal argument supported by at least three authorities.
The strongest counterargument.
One procedural obstacle.
A proposed resolution.
Final question: Would your conclusion change if Daniel were scheduled for a critical hearing tomorrow?
Sehmani KingSun-Leo - Toronto - Nathan Philip Square - City Hall
THE ULTIMATE “REEL” LEGAL QUESTION
Here is the question I want our legal community to consider:
If you were the lawyer in this scenario, and you believed that remaining silent could contribute to an innocent person remaining imprisoned, how would you reconcile your professional obligations with your personal responsibility to justice?
Would you:
A. Maintain confidentiality and continue representing your client.
B. Withdraw from representation and seek independent ethical advice.
C. Pursue lawful judicial avenues to determine whether an exception applies.
D. Disclose the confession immediately because preventing injustice is more important than privilege.
There is a catch.
Not every morally appealing answer is legally permissible, and more than one lawful step may be required.
Support your position with Canadian legislation, jurisprudence, and professional conduct rules.
THE LESSON BEHIND THE FILM
The Lincoln Lawyer reminds us that legal practice is not always a battle between right and wrong.
Sometimes it is a conflict between two principles that the justice system is designed to protect.
The right to confidential legal advice.
The right to a fair trial.
The protection of innocent people from wrongful convictions.
The lawyer's duty to the administration of justice.
A legal professional cannot simply abandon one obligation because another feels more compelling.
The real test of advocacy is finding a lawful path forward when every available choice carries consequences.
That requires more than courtroom confidence.
It requires legal research, sound judgment, professional courage, and the discipline to distinguish what we know from what we can prove—and what we are legally permitted to reveal.
LET'S DISCUSS
Legal professionals, law students, and members of the public are invited to participate.
Which option would you choose, and what Canadian legal authority supports your decision?
I am especially interested in hearing how practitioners would approach the innocence-at-stake exception, public safety concerns, and professional conflicts.
Share your analysis in the comments.
Disclaimer
The scenario, individuals, evidence, and proceedings described above are fictional and have been developed for legal education and discussion. The scenario is loosely inspired by The Lincoln Lawyer (2011) and does not reproduce the film's complete factual or legal circumstances. Any film clips, still images, or other third-party materials remain the property of their respective copyright owners. Their inclusion or proposed use does not imply permission or endorsement. Appropriate rights or permissions should be obtained before publication where required. The content is not legal advice and should not be relied upon to determine rights, professional obligations, or litigation strategy in an actual case. Applicable law, procedural requirements, and professional conduct obligations should be independently verified.
Please seek legal advice should you require it.
Until next time, may justice guide your journey both on and off the record.
LIKE
SHARE
COMMENT
Expert Legal Ethics Quiz
1. Your client confidentially admits to a past murder. Another person is imprisoned for it. What is the most legally defensible initial response?
A. Immediately send the confession to the wrongfully convict
B. Preserve confidentiality, assess the applicable exception
C. Withdraw and publish the confession anonymously
D. Ask the Crown to use the confession without identifying i
2. The client hands you a bloodstained object connected to the murder. Which proposition is most accurate?
A. All physical evidence delivered by a client becomes privi
B. Destroying the item is permissible if the client requests
C. The item raises distinct preservation, evidentiary, and p
D. You may retain it indefinitely without further considera
A client credibly threatens imminent serious bodily harm to your child. What is the most defensible legal analysis?
A. All past confessions become public information
B. The threat automatically waives every privilege
C. You are prohibited from taking any protective action
D. A narrowly limited public safety disclosure may be permis
4. After withdrawing, can you act for the wrongfully convicted individual against your former client's interests?
A. Yes, because withdrawal ends all obligations
B. Only after carefully assessing continuing confidentiality
C. Yes, if the new client offers informed consent
D. Yes, provided you do not disclose the confession in writi
BONUS:
I love movies! On the last Friday of the month, I will be sharing well known, favourite court/legal dilemma scenes and will pose a legal question to gain insight on what legal professionals have to say!
Make sure you stay connected - Join our email list and follow us on social media!
Until next time - may justice guide your journey both on and off the record.
Don't forget to leave a comment below and "like" for more!
Comments