Not in my state: Both the New York Court of Appeals (NY's highest court) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit have repeatedly held that in the absence of special circumstances, a client's identify and fee arrangement are not subject to the attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., Shargel v. United States,742 F.2d 61, 62-63 (2nd Cir. 1985)("We have consistently held that client identity and fee information are, absent special circumstances, not privileged");Jacqueline F. v. Segal, 47 N.Y.2d 215, 219 (1979)("Only those communications made in confidence to an attorney for the purpose of seeking professional advice are afforded the stature of privileged communications. For this reason, it has been generally stated that inasmuch as a client's identity is not relevant to advice proffered by an attorney, such communication is not privileged*** Justification for the same result has also been predicated upon the theory that the identity of a client must be disclosed to ensure that there exists an attorney-client relationship during the course of which privileged communications may be made").
Go UFKC yourself.