In the case of Pennsylvania v. Goldhammer (1985), the U.S Supreme Court examined whether a state could require an attorney to disclose his client's intention to commit perjury before trial. The defendant, Goldhammer, was charged with theft and conspiracy. His lawyer knew that he intended to lie on the stand but did not inform the court because of attorney-client privilege rules. When this came out after conviction, it led to disciplinary action against him by Pennsylvania’s Disciplinary Board which resulted in a one-year suspension from practicing law for violating ethical standards. The Supreme Court upheld this decision stating that while attorneys have an obligation towards their clients' confidentiality rights under attorney-client privilege, they also owe duties of honesty and integrity towards courts as officers of justice system. Therefore, if they become aware that their client intends to commit perjury or any other fraud upon court during proceedings then they must take steps such as advising them against it or withdrawing representation if necessary rather than passively allowing it happen thereby becoming complicit in crime themselves.

In the dissenting opinion for Pennsylvania v. Goldhammer, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a warrantless search of an individual's home based on "exigent circumstances." He argued that this interpretation of exigency was overly broad and could potentially lead to abuse by law enforcement officials. In his view, there were no immediate dangers or risks present in this case that would justify bypassing Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, he expressed concern about eroding these constitutional safeguards by allowing exceptions without clear boundaries or guidelines. This could set a dangerous precedent where privacy rights are compromised under vague notions of urgency or necessity.