Definition
A confidential communication is a statement, disclosure, or exchange of information made within a relationship or context that the law recognizes as protected from compelled disclosure — typically in judicial or administrative proceedings. The protection rests on a policy judgment that certain relationships are valuable enough to society that the candor they require must be shielded from the coercive reach of legal process.
The term does most of its work in two overlapping but distinct legal contexts:
1. EVIDENTIARY PRIVILEGE. In evidence law, a confidential communication is the substance of what passes between parties to a recognized privileged relationship — attorney-client, physician-patient, clergy-penitent, or spouses — when the communication is made in confidence and for the purpose the relationship serves. The privilege belongs to the holder (typically the communicating party), protects against compelled testimony, and can be waived. Not every communication within a privileged relationship qualifies; the communication must have been made with a reasonable expectation of privacy and for the relationship's protected purpose.
2. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY CONFIDENTIALITY. Outside the courtroom, legislatures and agencies impose confidentiality obligations on specific categories of information — medical records, mental health disclosures, juvenile records, tax returns, mediation statements — regardless of whether a formal privilege applies. Here, "confidential communication" describes protected information as a matter of regulatory status, not just evidentiary rule.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A communication intended to be kept secret; information shared in private with an expectation it will not be disclosed to others.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Not directly defined as a compound; "confidential" is defined as "enjoying the confidence of another; trusted in; as, a confidential servant or friend" and "communicated in confidence; secret."
The everyday meaning captures the social expectation of secrecy but misses the legal architecture entirely. In law, the question is not simply whether the speaker wanted privacy — it is whether the communication falls within a category the law will actually enforce by excluding evidence, imposing liability for disclosure, or disqualifying a witness. A secret told to a best friend is confidential in the ordinary sense; it is not a confidential communication in the legal sense.
---
Common Confusion
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION vs. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. Burrill cross-references "Privileged communication" rather than defining "confidential communication" independently, and many practitioners use the terms interchangeably. They are related but not identical. A privileged communication is an evidentiary rule shielding a communication from compelled disclosure in a legal proceeding. A confidential communication is the underlying protected information — the thing the privilege covers. Some confidential communications are protected by privilege; others are protected by statute, contract, or professional-responsibility rules that operate independently of the evidentiary privilege doctrine. The distinction matters when a communication is protected by regulation or agreement but no formal privilege applies, or when the privilege has been waived but a separate statutory duty of confidentiality persists.
---
Core Elements
For a communication to qualify as a confidential communication in the evidentiary-privilege sense, courts generally require:
1. A recognized protected relationship. Attorney-client, physician-patient, clergy-penitent, spousal, therapist-patient, or another category recognized by statute or common law in the jurisdiction.
2. Communication for the purpose of the relationship. The disclosure must have been made to enable the relationship's function — seeking legal advice, obtaining medical treatment, making a religious confession — not for some collateral purpose.
3. Reasonable expectation of confidentiality. The speaker must have intended privacy and circumstances must have been consistent with that expectation. Presence of unnecessary third parties may destroy confidentiality.
4. Absence of waiver. The holder must not have voluntarily disclosed the communication in a manner inconsistent with maintaining its protected status.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The term is a gateway, not a destination. Researching "confidential communication" in historical sources will often redirect you immediately to "privilege" or "privileged communication" — as Burrill does — so researchers should run both searches in parallel and not assume one index entry captures the full doctrine.
Bouvier's fragment on attorney conduct signals an important historical layering: early American sources treated the confidentiality obligation primarily as a professional-conduct rule (grounds for disbarment) rather than as a rule of evidence. The evidentiary privilege and the professional duty developed along separate tracks and are still governed by separate bodies of law. A source discussing "confidential communications" in the professional-discipline context may say nothing about privilege doctrine, and vice versa.
The statutory confidentiality strand has expanded dramatically since the mid-twentieth century. Researchers working with pre-1970s sources will find sparse treatment of statutory confidentiality obligations outside the attorney context; HIPAA-era and post-FERPA sources occupy entirely different terrain. Do not extrapolate historical privilege doctrine to modern regulatory schemes.
Mediation confidentiality is a particularly active area where the evidentiary and statutory strands intersect and sometimes conflict — communications may be protected by state mediation privilege, by contract, and by federal or state statute simultaneously, with different scope and waiver rules under each.
Juvenile records present a related but distinct framework: "confidentiality" there is a status imposed on records and proceedings by statute, not a relational privilege held by an individual.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's treatment is purely a cross-reference to "Privileged communication," which reflects the nineteenth-century tendency to collapse the two concepts. For practitioners of that era, what made a communication legally protected was the privilege doctrine; the idea of statutory confidentiality as an independent legal category had not yet developed. Researchers relying solely on Burrill will find the evidentiary privilege doctrine and nothing else.
Bouvier's preserved fragment does not define the term directly but illuminates the professional-conduct dimension: the attorney's obligation of confidentiality was understood as subordinate to the administration of justice, and breach could result in disbarment. This framing — confidentiality as a duty of the attorney, not a right of the client — differs in emphasis from the modern client-centered privilege framework, where the client holds and can waive the privilege. Historical sources may therefore understate the client's control over disclosure.
Neither source addresses physician-patient privilege in this entry (it was a creature of statute even in the nineteenth century and varied widely by jurisdiction), spousal privilege, or anything resembling modern regulatory confidentiality. Researchers should treat historical dictionary entries on this term as describing only one slice of a doctrine that has grown substantially.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The scope of recognized privileged relationships varies by jurisdiction: the physician-patient privilege, for example, does not exist at federal common law and must be created by statute. State mediation confidentiality statutes differ significantly in whether they create an evidentiary privilege, a testimonial limitation, or both. Researchers should not assume that a privilege recognized in one jurisdiction applies in another.
---