As with other professionals, the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client. In the eyes of the law, the confidentiality privilege between pastor and parishoner belongs to the parishoner and not to the pastor. Despite any vows or pledges made by the professionals, they are not the ones in charge. If a legitimate privilege exists, then it cannot be violated by the professional. In this case, that’s the client, Zimmerman.
That is true even if he releases them from their part in his case. That is true until the point he specifically releases them to speak freely.
In this case, Zimmerman apparently had an agreement for these 2 lawyers to represent his interests in matters relating to the Martin shooting. Unless and until charges are filed, there is no ‘case’ but there surely are ‘interests.’
If there were a case filed in court, the attorneys would have had to file a motion to withdraw, setting out their reasons, citing examples. In this case, it would be failure to communicate. Courts don’t let attorneys just walk away from a client, the attorneys have to set out their reasons, and the court then has to allow the withdrawal.
Were there a case, the filing of that motion would instantly become a matter of public record. In the absence of a suit or charges having been filed, and nowhere to file a motion to withdraw, they held a press conference. They had already ‘entered their appearance’ in the court of public opinion. How else were they to withdraw from that court?
Attorney-client privilege doesn’t extend to the public information of the fact that said attorneys represent(ed) Zimmerman, or the fact of their withdrawal from that representation. Those are matters of public record. I would imagine it’s not much different from a pastor acknowledging publicly that someone belonged to his congregation but no longer does. Would that mean the pastor has breached his congregant’s privilege?