http://www.best-speech-topics.com/pro-con-speech.html
These arguments have some real (flaws). The simple truth is that justice relies on the fact that guilty people will be punished and innocent people will go free. Attorney-client privilege promises that neither of these things is going to happen. The courts can't have access to important documents or other information that shows someone has (committed a crime) or that demonstrates evidence that someone else is innocent.
People don't seek legal advice because it is (confidential). Lots of people confide in non-legal parties [like friends and relatives], knowing that these people may have to eventually (testify against) them. Moreover, whether we have attorney-client privilege or not, people withhold information from their lawyers, hoping to save their (reputations). Laws were designed to protect the innocent, unfortunately this law more often than not protects the guilty.
There are hundreds of situations where civil interests should be protected before a client's interests, and the courts should make that decision accordingly. If an innocent person is going to jail because of attorney-client privilege or knowledge of a crime is being covered up, say a financial crime that will be (devastating) to thousands, an attorney has an ethical obligation to report that, and attorney-client privilege stands in the way of that.
Keeping attorney-client privilege in our system only allows the guilty, the rich, and the powerful to dominate our (society), despite what any critics may say.
Our justice system was founded on protecting the rights of the (innocent), and that simply cannot happen with archaic rules like attorney-client privilege.