Mr. Lane.

she instructed me not to discuss the entire Markham situation at all, specifically, and quite strongly, and insistently, over my objection.

Mr. Rankin.

Is it your position, then that you have a right to disclose part of the information about the Helen Markham matter to the Commission and don't have a duty to disclose all of it?

Mr. Lane.

I think that when one has a client, one has the right, if one secures the permission of the client, to release the results of investigation while retaining the sanctity of working documents belonging to an attorney; yes. I think there is a clear distinction.

Mr. Rankin.

It is your contention you can hold back part of it so that the Commission then is not able to verify what you do tell, the part you do tell?

Mr. Lane.

Well, of course----

Mr. Rankin.

Is that your position?

Mr. Lane.

No, and I haven't said anything, I think, even comparable to that. I said one can testify if one has permission of the client in terms of the result of an investigation conducted by a client.

Mr. Rankin.

Your conclusion about the testimony? Is that what you mean?

Mr. Lane.

Not my conclusion. The result of the investigation, the result of inquiry. But at the same time it does not mean that an attorney's working documents are no longer sanctified documents.

Mr. Rankin.

About the same matter; is that right?

Mr. Lane.

Of course, about the same matter. Yes.

Mr. Rankin.

Do you know of any law to support that position?

Mr. Lane.

That an attorney's working documents----

Mr. Rankin.

Can be withheld about a matter that he purports to give testimony concerning?

Mr. Lane.

I have not researched the question; no. Do you have law indication that is inaccurate?

Mr. Rankin.

I think it is quite inaccurate. If you come before any body, the Commission or any court, and purport to disclose part of a matter, I know of no law that permits you to withhold the rest.

Mr. Lane.

Well, it is not a question of disclosing part of a matter. There is a conclusion of an investigation. For example, I assume that this Commission will report its conclusions, but they may not necessarily report every portion of the working documents before this Commission, because these are two separate areas. One is a conclusion, and one is the working documents. I have reported the conclusion, but that does not mean, in my view, that the working documents of an attorney, therefore, are no longer privileged.

Mr. Rankin.

What you purported to report was what you said was her testimony in regard to these incidents, was it not?

Mr. Lane.

It was not her testimony. It was a statement that she made to me.

Mr. Rankin.

Her statement she made to you?

Mr. Lane.

Yes.

Mr. Rankin.

You purported to give that to the Commission.

Mr. Lane.

I did give it to the Commission.

Mr. Rankin.

And then you said you had a recording of it; is that right?

Mr. Lane.

That is correct.

Mr. Rankin.

And you are not----

Mr. Lane.

I don't think I ever said that to the Commission.

Mr. Rankin.

You are saying it now, are you not?

Mr. Lane.

Yes; I am saying it now.

Mr. Rankin.

And you are not willing to have the Commission have the recording to check the accuracy of your report about what the testimony or statement was, is that right?

Mr. Lane.

I am not in a position to give you that document. I have said that several times; yes, sir. I don't understand why it is not possible to call Markham and to call me and to have us confront each other. I think clearly the Commission would then secure the facts. I would be happy to participate in such a confrontation. It seems to me to be the order----

The Chairman.

Wouldn't you then be violating your attorney-client privilege just the same?