Is the implication that $15,000 for two days work is far more than his typical rate? I suppose there are $1,000/hour divorce lawyers around in Hollywood, but it’s not the kind of rate I would generally expect for non-multi-millionaire celebrities.
If Adam is indeed jacking his prices way up and threatening to reveal what he knows unless she pays up, that seems not only unethical, but pretty clearly criminal (blackmail) to me. If that really is his going rate, there’s one less element, but still probably criminal blackmail.
Especially as I think his threat is meaningless, as there no confidentiality to be broken anyway. There’s nothing privileged about a client’s actions in a public place where they could be observed any other member of the public, especially if the lawyer isn’t there with the client but just happens to notice and observe the client. If fact, if the husband’s team found out about this, and put Adam on the stand, he would have to (legally and ethically) say what he saw (which opens some other cans of ethical worms, but not the one that’s been discussed).
Bearing in mind that this is a David E. Kelly show (Boston Legal, The Practice, Ally McBeal, etc) I have a feeling Adam was bluffing. If his client looked up the actual laws or statutes surrounding a lawyer breaking privilege she’d find the sections mentioned upthread and assume they applied to her. So I think he was playing on her ignorance of the law to take advantage of her predilection for handing out envelopes full of cash.
As long as the demand is for work actually done and or costs actually incurred in those two days, I would say that he would be able to make a claim for them. Whether or not that was his going rate or actual costs is a question of fact which would be decided during any proceedings and not relevant as to the maintainability of said claim.
Things to consider, Firstly the fact that such a claim can be made, says nothing on to paraphrase Barack Obama, the wisdom of so making, indeed I would probably say in such circumstances, that I would not pursue it.
Secondly, I would point out that the overheard conversation can certainly be privileged, it relates to the case. If I come across information about my clients case (say some evidence) independently of what I was told or even through third parties, the question that an ethics committee would look at is “is it related to my clients case and would it harm my clients to reveal it, and if yes, defiantly privileged.” The present example is not privileged however as it is to show that a fraud (criminal activity) is being committed.
Finally, I would point out that independently of Professional Conduct rules, firms and chambers usually have internal rules and regulations which can be MUCH stricter.