The privilege belongs to the client, not the lawyer. If the client wants to assert it, he can. If he wants to waive it, he can.
It appears that the Louisiana courts are trying to apply the same rule to priests. Here, the client has waived the privilege, but the church is claiming that the privilege belongs to the confessor, not the penitent.
True, and I was only using this as a similar reference, not an exact connection. However, looking a bit into the lawyer angle gives me this, an older news story on ABA rule changes:
GIBSON: And, therefore, if they don't speak, they're just as much a part of the conspiracy as the crooked executives who are on their way to jail?
NAPOLITANO: Morally, yes, but legally, no.
...
NAPOLITANO: Right, the rule does not go as far as John Gibson would like the rule to go. It doesn't impose liability for silence. It only removes liability for speaking.Lawyers May Break Attorney-Client Privilege on Dirty Business
And really, I don't see how the courts can force someone to speak. Not just 5th Amendment (as would apply here since it seems the family is suing the priest for not talking), but freedom of speech in general as well.
Not just 5th Amendment (as would apply here since it seems the family is suing the priest for not talking)Fifth Amendment only applies to criminal liability. If the statute of limitations has run for a criminal prosecution, he can't assert it. And while it can be asserted in a civil matter if there is criminal risk, the remedy is to direct the trier of fact to presume that the person did the acts of which he is accused. So while asserting the 5th in a civil action may help you stay out of jail, you will likely end up with a judgment against you.