from the client, are unobtainable by summons from the attorney. Id. at 405, 96 S.Ct. at 1578. This holding rests on the policy reasons supporting the attorney-client privilege. Id. To hold otherwise would discourage clients from disclosing incriminating documents to their attorneys. The attorney-client privilege and the interests it protects would be ill-served by holding that Terry “walked into his attorney’s office unquestionably shielded with the fifth amendment’s protection, and walked out with something less.” United States v. Judson, 322 F.2d 460, 466 (9th Cir.1963). Thus, we must consider whether, if Terry held the records demanded, his act of turning them over would be testimonial and incriminating. Accord In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 754 F.2d 918, 920 (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 747 F.2d 1098,
holding that an attorneys filing a notice of appearance on behalf of his or her client constitute a waiver of service of process by the client recognizing that an attorneys production could implicate client in compelled testimonial incrimination holding trial court erred when it sanctioned client where the evidence showed that the attorney filed frivolous pleadings on behalf of the client but the client did nothing more than rely on her attorneys advice holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client