That one actually makes sense to me, because there are caves set into hills/mountains etc, and caves you have to go below ground to get into.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I think about it.

Emmett is already in his tuxedo for Thanksgiving. He doesn't need much prompting to bust out the tux.

I'm still trying to figure out why all musicals have to be based on a movie these days. Isn't there any original theater left?

Plenty. Just not usually on Broadway.

I recently discovered that the cave my grandparents used to work at has a web page. [link] We used to spend two weeks with them every summer and my grandfather would let me help give the tours. I wish I had some of those old postcards.

I am on my own today. I slept 'til 11, fed the cats, washed some dishes, made coffee and gave each cat some lap time. Eventually I might make some enchiladas. My only (vague) reference to tradition is the pumpkin cheese chocolate ganache I have sitting in the fridge.

Can a lawyer breach client-lawyer confidentiality if they know the client is going to commit a future crime? I was wondering if, in The Good Wife, Alicia could rat on Stern if she knew he was going to drive again with his dementia.

They are in Illinois, right? There is a special rule for clients with diminished capacity >[link]

eta: but I think under section 8, no.

What are the conditions in which a lawyer can? Upcoming bodily harm?

Depends on the state, but here is Illinois' rule:

RULE 1.6: CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b) or required by paragraph (c).

(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

(1) to prevent the client from committing a crime in circumstances other than those specified in paragraph (c);

(2) to prevent the client from committing fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer’s services;

(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services;

(4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with these Rules;

(5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client; or

(6) to comply with other law or a court order.

(c) A lawyer shall reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.

(d) Information received by a lawyer participating in a meeting or proceeding with a trained intervener or panel of trained interveners of an approved lawyers’ assistance program, or in an intermediary program approved by a circuit court in which nondisciplinary complaints against judges or lawyers can be referred, shall be considered information relating to the representation of a client for purposes of these Rules.

So for The Good Wife scenario there isn't enough of a claim to "reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm" if he's driving impaired?

I also wondered--the privilege must extend to agents of the lawyer, right? So Kalinda is bound too, right?

It's a gray area, I think.

Yes on Kalinda.