Consider this scenario. A client (Lee) confides in his lawyer (Bob) that he is the Butcher, the infamous serial killer who has terrorized the district for over a decade and never been caught. Bob is bound by attorney-client privilege not to say a word. After agonizing over what he's been told for several days, Bob decides to anonymously tip off the police, calling from an isolated payphone in the middle of the night, with a hood over his head and putting on a fake voice. "Hello? Police? I saw a guy with a knife in his hand and blood on his clothes pulling his Chevy up in the driveway of the blue house on Fifth Street and then entering. No, it's not a break-in; I think he lives there. He let himself in with a key. He's about five-ten, a hundred eighty pounds, brown hair and glasses. Had a nasty scar on his cheek, too. My name? No, I'd rather not say. Buh-bye." Of course, there was no guy with blood on his clothes and a knife in his hand pulling his Chevy up in the driveway of the blue house on Fifth Street and entering the place that very night. But the address, make of car and physical description are all Lee's. The police raid Lee's house and discover enough evidence to hang him for the Butcher murders a hundred times over (murder weapons, body part trophies, et cetera). Lee is shot and wounded while trying to make a break for it, and is taken into custody. Naturally, his suspicion turns to his lawyer, and he, enraged, accuses Bob of breaking privilege. Bob counters just as vehemently that he did nothing of the sort. It becomes a case of the lawyer's word against the client's. No-one can prove that Bob was the anonymous tipster. What would become of the case of The People versus Lee?