The Supreme Court's first opinion Monday of this session, a week and a half ago now, was disappointing. Much awaited, but more of a whimper than a bang. One of the two cases decided is intriguing, but the SCOTUS decision entirely evaded the reason for the intrigue. The case turned on the extent of the attorney-client evidentiary immunity. If an attorney and a client have a discussion about some completely non-legal matter (say, the client's recent travels), the fact that they happen to be attorney and client is not germane. The conversation may be pertinent if the client latter claims an alibi defense to some criminal charge and the conversation throws light upon it, the conversation is NOT privileged. But suppose an attorney and client have a conversation that touches upon both legal and non-legal matters. Courts will not try to de-scramble the egg and protect the purely legal parts. Either the conversation is as a whole non-legal enough to lose the privilege or it i...