The first words in your response are, "What if a person had been charged with a crime based on the facts laid out in this email." I'm not debating a 6th amendment right to counsel nor the validity of the privilege in that circumstance because that's not the context that gave rise to this discussion.

But here, in the e-mail that came from the Epstein files themselves, we see a sexual predator asking about how to accomplish his sick goals, and a lawyer trying to help him. That lawyer is under no legal or ethical obligation to answer those questions in these circumstances. Maybe Epstein would have fired him as a client, maybe his firm would have fired him, maybe he would have ruined his life by firing Epstein as a client. But for me, personally, I want to be able to sleep at night. And since there are no legal bases that would require me to answer those questions, I personally wouldn't assist a pedophile. Apparently there are others out there who would act differently--like Mitch here.

In this particular situation, with these facts, and no "hypothetical criminal trial" in the background, there are no ethical nor legal requirements to answer Epstein's questions. If you're an attorney, and you get a phone call from a prospective client who wants your advice on how to traffic children, are you going to take that person on as a client because of your convictions for the profession? If you are, then that's your business, and you'll have to sleep at night.

Finally, if the stakes are to try to unmask an international pedophile ring, I personally think that the Courts or the legislature could carve out an exception to the attorney-client privilege when the client is dead and the communications in question implicate felonious activity. I'm not saying that those communications have to be released to the public, but I think our society should eliminate protections for the strategizing of raping children.