or obtained in aid of the commission of a crime or a fraud.” N.J.S.A. 2A:84-20(2)(a); N.J.R.E. 504(2)(a). This exception is “a statutory recognition of a situation in which the purpose of the privilege would not be served by its enforcement.” Fellerman, supra, 99 N.J. at 503, 493 A.2d 1239. “A lawyer cannot be properly consulted professionally for advice to aid in the perpetration of a fraud on a court. The claim of ‘privilege’ is that of the client and a fraudulent object or purpose puts him beyond” the scope of this protection. Ibid, (citing In re Stein, 1 N.J. 228, 236, 62 A.2d 801 (1949)). A second statutory exception, N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-20(2)(a), applies when the holder knowingly and without coercion waives the privilege. Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 300, 696 A.2d 556 (1997)(<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). The Court recognized a
recognizing that an attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client holding that a client only waives the privilege to the extent necessary to reveal the advice of counsel he placed at issue holding that inconsistencies between an application and testimony can serve as the basis for adverse credibility findings where the testimonial change goes to the heart of a petitioners claim recognizing implicit waiver of the attorney client privilege where the plaintiff has placed in issue a communication which goes to the heart of the claim in controversy holding that when an attorney represents multiple clients and a dispute between the attorney and one client later occurs there is a waiver of the privilege but only by the client asserting the liability