Page:Laman v. McCord.pdf/9

Rh ARK.1

409

the need of the city council for legal advice and consultation is far different than that of the General Assembly. There is a strong implication in Morgan v. Wells, 242 Ark. 499, 415 S.W. 2d 323, that the general rule that communications made in the presence of third persons are not privileged or confidential is applicable to the attorney-client relationship. See, Barnhart, Theory of Testimonial Competency and-Privilege, 4 Ark. Law Rev. 377, 402. Thus, there is little doubt that the Freedom of Information Act has deprived each agency named therein (as a body) of free communication with, and unrestrained advice from, its attorneys, in confidence. It is not our function to look into the wisdom of this action or the advisibility of the public purpose sought to be accomplished. Berry v. Gordon, 237 Ark. 547, 865, 376 S.W. 2d 279; Beaumont v. Faubus, 239 Ark. 801, 394 S.W. 2d 478; McCastlain v. Oklahoma Gas & E16-. Co., 243 Ark. 506, 420 S.W. 2d 893; Haynie v. City of Little Rock, 243 Ark. 86, 418 S.W. 2d 633.