Dissenting Opinion by
WILNER, J.,which CATHELL and RODOWSKY, JJ., join
Since December 1999, Elsa Newman, a lawyer, had been involved in a contentious divorce action with her husband, Arlen Slobodow, that included both financial issues and custody of their two children, Lars and Herbie. The custody battle, fought in the courts of both the District of Columbia and Montgomery County, embodied claims by each party that the other had physically or sexually abused the children. On at least two occasions, Newman filed claims in the District accusing Slobodow of sexually abusing the children. One such complaint was investigated by the D.C. police and resolved as “Unfounded.” The other, involving allegations of child pornography, was investigated by the FBI; it too was closed without action. In early 2001, following an apparent finding by the District of Columbia court that Newman had abused or neglected the children, Slobodow was given custody of the children and Newman was limited to supervised visits. That arrangement was confirmed by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County in September, 2001. Trial with respect to “permanent” custody was scheduled for January 28, 2002 in Montgomery County.
Newman apparently decided not to wait, or to trust her luck to the judicial process. Instead, she arranged for her longtime girlfriend, Margery Landry, to break into Slobodow’s home during the dead of night, kill him, and leave behind *319packets of pornographic material as evidence that he had been sexually abusing his two sons. The fact that the children were also in the home and might be hurt or killed as well did not seem to matter. Landry, indeed, attempted to carry out that plan and nearly succeeded in doing so. At some point in the early morning hours of January 7, 2002, while Newman was conveniently in New Jersey, Landry, dressed in black and wearing a ski mask and latex gloves, broke into Slobodow’s home, assaulted Slobodow as he lay in bed, shot at him twice, wounding him once in the leg, beat him over the head with a telephone, and attempted to flee. When Slobodow attempted to reach another telephone to call for help, she assaulted him a second time and succeeded in escaping through a window, leaving behind a handgun with an obliterated serial number, an empty clip and two spent shell casings, a fanny pack containing a box of nine millimeter ammunition, a pornographic video tape, and pornographic magazines and books. Landry was arrested, charged with and pled guilty to assault, burglary, reckless endangerment, use of a handgun in the commission of a felony, and obliterating the serial number on a handgun, and sentenced to prison for 53 years, with all but 20 years suspended.
In the belief that Landry’s conduct was part of a conspiracy to affect the outcome of the pending custody case, the State charged Newman with conspiracy, attempted first degree murder, assault, burglary, and unlawful use of a handgun. On more than ample evidence, she was convicted on all counts and sentenced to life in prison, with all but 20 years suspended.
The Court proposes to reverse those convictions and award Newman a new trial because it concludes that (1) certain threatening admissions made by Newman in the presence of her domestic relations attorney were inadmissible, and (2) a relatively innocuous statement by a detective that was immediately dealt with by a fully adequate curative instruction was so prejudicial as to be beyond remedy other than by declaring a mistrial. Both of those conclusions, in my view, are wrong, and I therefore respectfully dissent.
*320A.
The Attorney’s Testimony
The State presented several categories of evidence against Newman. One concerned the events of January 7 at Slobo-dow’s home; a second dealt with the close relationship between Newman and Landry. The category at issue here involved statements made by Newman to various people during the divorce and custody litigation, some of which were recounted at trial by Newman’s divorce lawyer, Stephen Friedman. In examining the issues raised by Newman regarding that testimony, some greater context than appears in the Court’s opinion is necessary.
Newman first employed Friedman in December, 1999, to represent her in her divorce case, which, as noted, came to include collateral abuse and neglect charges in both Maryland and the District of Columbia. In August, 2000, about three weeks before scheduled trial in the custody aspect of the divorce case, Newman fired Friedman. In January, 2001, she fired the lawyer she had retained to replace him and reemployed Mr. Friedman. During the first period of representation, Newman became friendly with Friedman’s secretary, Sandra Ashley. In December, 2000 — after she had fired Friedman and before she rehired him — Newman called Ms. Ashley and arranged to have dinner with her. During that dinner, she informed Ms. Ashley that she “had plans to murder her husband.” Specifically, she said that her friend Landry “had connections with the mob in Chicago,” that Landry was trying to obtain a gun from Chicago that was untraceable, and that she planned to dress all in black. She said at the time that she intended to catch her husband on the street in Washington when the children were not with him and kill him. Ashley said that Newman seemed quite serious, even when warned about the consequences, and that Ashley took the threat seriously. After consulting with an attorney, however, Ms. Ashley decided not to report the matter to the authorities, but, in February, 2001, after Newman had rehired *321Friedman, she advised Friedman of the conversation in an email.
Friedman received another e-mail in February regarding the same Mnd of threat, this one from his associate, Beth Rogers. Ms. Rogers had accompanied Newman to an FBI polygraph test, presumably in connection with her complaint that Slobodow was involved in child pornography. When Newman “failed” the test, Rogers reported that she said several times that “she would kill herself and the kids.”
At some point, possibly in April, 2001, Newman and Landry were in Friedman’s office. Newman often brought Landry to meetings with Friedman. Newman was upset because the District of Columbia court had recently given custody of the children to Slobodow. As Friedman was busy reading a report of some kind, Newman and Landry were conversing with one another. They were not talking to Friedman, and he was not part of the conversation. Newman was talking to Landry about shooting Lars and framing Slobodow. They spoke about the need to do the deed personally and not to hire someone, to have an alibi, and to plant pornographic evidence in Slobodow’s house so he would be blamed. Friedman said that he was trying not to listen to the conversation and asked them to stop. He said that he did not take the conversation seriously at that point. That kind of conversation later occurred on another occasion, whereupon Friedman barred Landry from participating in his meetings with Newman.
On August 31, 2001, Friedman met with Newman for several hours to prepare for a hearing set before Judge Ryan on September 4. The hearing was to be on some of the financial aspects of the divorce. Although, according to him, Newman was “in a rage” during the early part of the meeting, at some point she got quiet and thoughtful, and announced “You know, I don’t have to kill both children. I only need to kill Lars because I can save Herbie, and then Arlen will go to jail and get what he deserves because he is a criminal, and I can at least save Herbie.” Friedman said that comments such as that had been made before, and he cautioned her that she *322could not involve him in a murder and that he had an obligation to tell the court when she “[said] stuff like that.” Newman responded that he was not allowed to repeat any of it and she would sue him if he did so.
Friedman said that he was now concerned that Newman or Landry would kill either Lars or Slobodow, and that, after consulting an ethics adviser and a psychologist, he concluded that he might be an accessory before the fact to murder. Not desiring to contact the authorities or Judge Ryan, he instead, on the morning of the hearing, came to court early and consulted Judge Weinstein, the county administrative judge, who referred him to Judge Scrivener, the judge who headed the Family Division. Invoking Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6, Friedman recounted his concerns to her, including Newman’s threat to kill Lars and blame Slobodow. He read to her the e-mail he had received from Ms. Rogers. Judge Scrivener said that she would deal with the matter, following which Friedman reported to Judge Ryan’s courtroom, prepared to participate in the hearing. After discussing the matter with several of her colleagues, Judge Scrivener called Judge Ryan, in the middle of the hearing, and informed him of what Friedman had disclosed. Judge Ryan returned to court and, on the record, recounted what Judge Scrivener had told him, namely, that “Ms. Newman has told Mr. Friedman and others that if she does not obtain custody of the children that she would kill the children rather than expose them to the torture of Mr. Slobodow ... and that she had hired a hitman to kill him, that is, to kill Mr. Slobodow.” Judge Ryan concluded that Mr. Friedman was obliged to make that disclosure and permitted him to withdraw his appearance.
In a preliminary proceeding before Judge Rupp, prior to the commencement of her criminal trial, Newman objected to Friedman’s testifying, claiming that her disclosures to him were privileged. The prosecutor responded that, although Friedman was then in court, he had not spoken with the prosecutors regarding Newman’s statements, that the State had no intention of calling him as a witness, and that it desired only to put into evidence the transcript of the proceeding *323before Judge Ryan, which was a public record. Nonetheless, Friedman was called to testify at the preliminary proceeding with respect to the circumstances behind his disclosure to Judge Scrivener, so the court could rule on whether those disclosures, as revealed in the transcript of the proceeding before Judge Ryan, were protected by the privilege. After listening to that testimony, as recounted above, Judge Rupp, consistently with the rulings of Judges Ryan and Scrivener, concluded that Friedman had acted reasonably and that “he did what he needed to do under [R]ule 1.6.”
The relevant part of the transcript of proceedings before Judge Ryan on September 4 was placed into evidence as a Joint Exhibit, by stipulation. The prosecutor was concerned, however, that the transcript revealed, in substance, only what Judge Ryan said that Judge Scrivener had told him about what Friedman had told her regarding statements made by Newman, which was effectively quadruple-level hearsay. She changed her view and indicated her desire to speak directly with Friedman and to call him as a witness. Friedman declined to speak with the prosecutor or to testify unless specifically ordered to do so. Judge Rupp, following his earlier ruling that the disclosure to Judge Scrivener was appropriate, entered an order to the effect that (1) Friedman was not precluded from disclosing to the prosecutor what he had disclosed to Judge Scrivener, and (2) Friedman, having been subpoenaed to testify, was required to do so. In accordance with that order, Friedman testified at trial and disclosed to the jury essentially what he had previously told Judge Scrivener.
The Court recognizes that there are two legal precepts that need to be considered. The one actually invoked by Friedman is Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6. Section (a) of that Rule effectively precludes a lawyer from revealing information relating to representation of a client unless authorized by the client or by section (b) of the Rule. In relevant part, § (b) authorizes a lawyer to reveal information to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary “(1) to prevent the client from committing a criminal or fraudulent act that *324the lawyer believes is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm.” The other precept is the ancient common law attorney-client privilege that has been codified by reference in Maryland Code, § 9-108 of the Cts. & Jud. Proc. Article (“A person may not be compelled to testify in violation of the attorney-client privilege”).
The Court recognizes that there is “a subtle relationship between the confidentiality required under Rule 1.6 and the evidentiary rule of the attorney-client privilege” in that “[t]he principle of confidentiality is given effect in both bodies of law.” The Court does not seem to take issue with the validity of Friedman’s disclosures to Judge Scrivener under Rule 1.6 and thus, I assume, accepts Judge Scrivener’s, Judge Ryan’s, and Judge Rupp’s determinations that Friedman acted properly under the Rule in making the disclosure to Judge Scrivener. The Court thereby presumably accepts that Friedman reasonably believed that the disclosure was necessary to prevent Newman, or Landry from committing a criminal act likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm to another. Indeed, events showed rather remarkably the reasonableness of that belief.
The Court then detaches the evidentiary privilege from the Rule and, relying principally on Purcell v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District, 424 Mass. 109, 676 N.E.2d 436 (1997), concludes that, even if disclosure is appropriate under the Rule, the attorney may be prevented from making the same disclosure in court. Although I recognize that the Rule and the evidentiary privilege are not identical in scope (see Parler & Wobber v. Miles & Stockbridge, 359 Md. 671, 688-93, 756 A.2d 526, 535-38 (2000)), but, with all due respect to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, I can discern no justification whatever for a holding that an attorney may, under Rule 1.6, properly disclose client communications, clearly intended to be confidential, to law enforcement or judicial authorities that almost certainly will result in a criminal investigation of the client and may well result in criminal charges being filed against the client, but that, if such charges *325are brought, the attorney may be precluded from making the self-same disclosures in court.
Borrowing in part from the Massachusetts case, the Court offers three reasons for such a distinction: (1) lawyers will be reluctant to make disclosures “if they know that the information they disclose may lead to adverse consequences to their clients,” (2) permitting such disclosures in court “could chill the free discourse between the lawyer and the client, thereby limiting the lawyer’s ability to thwart threats in the future,” and (3) to allow the attorney to testify in court would, in effect, permit the attorney to waive the privilege that belongs to the client. None of those reasons can survive any critical analysis; indeed, at least the first two really make little sense.
I cannot conceive, and the Court offers no explanation, of why a lawyer who believes that a disclosure is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm to another will feel free to make a disclosure under Rule 1.6, knowing that, as a result, his client will almost certainly be the target of a criminal investigation, but will nonetheless be reluctant to make the disclosure because he/she may be called to testify in court. If there is any empirical evidence that lawyers have withheld disclosures that are permitted and otherwise would be made under Rule 1.6 because of a fear that their client may be harmed if they ultimately are called to testify, the Court has not cited it. I expect that the Court has not cited such evidence because it does not exist. Similarly, the Court has cited no evidence, because I expect it does not exist, that “free discourse between the lawyer and the client” will somehow be chilled if the lawyer, who may properly “spill the beans” to law enforcement authorities under the Rule, is also free to testify in court.
The third reason offered is equally baseless. The evidentia-ry privilege always remains with the client, but the privilege is not absolute and has never been regarded as absolute. There are exceptions to it, and when those exceptions apply, the client’s privilege is either lost or diminished.
*326The only issue in this regard is whether the “crime/fraud” exception embodied- in Rule 1.6 should be recognized as well under the evidentiary privilege, and I can see no reason why it should not be. The exception for disclosures relating to threats of death or serious bodily injury is based on supervening public policy — the determination by the American Bar Association, which initially drafted and approved Rule 1.6, and by the State Supreme Courts, including this Court, that have also approved and actually promulgated the Rule that the general rule of confidentiality needs to bend in that circumstance. That public policy has equal force with respect to the testimonial privilege. Yes, it can be terribly disadvantageous to a client to have his/her lawyer disclose in court, or before some other tribunal, that the client threatened to kill or seriously injure a particular victim and that the threat was credible, but that is no more disadvantageous than permitting the lawyer to disclose that information to law enforcement authorities with a view toward commencing and pursuing a criminal investigation against the client. Drawing the distinction that the Court proposes to draw simply muddles the law, gives no clear guidance to lawyers in a most difficult area that cries out for consistency, and achieves no counterbalancing useful objective.
Apart from that, the Court fails to give appropriate consideration to just what was presented to the jury. Ms. Ashley’s testimony was clearly not protected by any attorney-client privilege. Friedman’s testimony regarding the conversation between Newman and Landry that occurred in April, 2001 also, in my view, was not protected by the testimonial privilege, and, indeed, the Court’s conclusion to the contrary is inconsistent with its own definition of the privilege. Friedman was not testifying as to communications made by Newman to him, but as to a conversation between Newman and Landry that he simply overheard. The Court defines the testimonial privilege as a rule that “prevents the disclosure of a confidential communication made by a client to his attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.” (Emphasis added). The *327Court either overlooks or ignores the fact that the communications made at that April, 2001 meeting were not of that kind.
The Court’s opinion, I am sorry to say, is flawed both legally and factually and espouses a view that makes little sense.
B.
Post-Miranda Silence
On August 1, 2002, the fourth day of trial, the State called Detective Susan Mercer to testify. Detective Mercer responded to the Slobodow home following the report of a shooting and was the lead investigator in the case. She testified first about the arrest of Landry and the various injuries noted on Landry’s hand and finger. She then was asked about her first contact with Newman, upon her arrest on January 10. This was the relevant colloquy:
Q And did you have any conversation with Ms. Newman? A Yes.
Q Okay. Did you advise her of her rights?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what rights did you advise her of?
A That she had the right to remain silent, she had the right to an attorney. At which time she advised that she would like to consult with an attorney. Actually, she had an attorney waiting in the station lobby for her.
Newman immediately moved for a mistrial based on the Detective’s volunteered statement regarding Newman’s decision to consult an attorney. The court recognized the error but concluded that a mistrial was not necessary and instead gave the following curative instruction:
“You have heard testimony that Elsa Newman was accompanied by an attorney when she appeared at the police station on January 10, 2002.
This is not evidence to be considered by you. Ms. Newman is presumed to be innocent of the charges against her. You have heard evidence that Ms. Newman’s x-husband, Arlen Slobodow was shot on January 7, 2002.
*328Ms. Newman’s house was searched following the shooting. She was aware of this on January 10, 2002. It is fully consistent with the presumption of innocence that anyone under these circumstances would appear and consult with an attorney at the police station to protect his or her interests.”
We have always accorded trial judges wide discretion in ruling on motions for mistrial. They are in the best position to determine whether an error, especially an evidentiary error, is so dramatically prejudicial as to require a mistrial — to be beyond remedy by a curative instruction. Only in the rarest instances have we second-guessed a trial judge’s determination in that regard. Citing cases that are wholly inapposite, the Court holds, as a matter of law, that the brief, unsolicited remark by Detective Mercer is of that character. To me, that is utter nonsense. Yes, it was error. That is not the point. The point, rather, is that this brief, unsolicited remark was immediately corrected by a clear and responsive curative instruction, that it occurred on the fourth day of trial, and that the overall evidence against Newman was more than abundant, if not, in fact, overwhelming. There is simply no rational basis for concluding that Detective Mercer’s remark so thoroughly and uncorrectably tainted the trial that a mistrial was required as a matter of law. We have allowed far more grievous errors to be corrected by curative instructions. But for Judge Harrell’s concurrence in this part of the dissent, which deprives the Court’s opinion on this issue of any prece-dential value, its purported ruling would sow nothing but confusion; it could not be cabined to just remarks about post-Miranda silence. Every error that creeps into a trial would become the subject of a motion for mistrial, and trial judges would be acting at their peril if they did not grant the motion.
For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court.
Judge CATHELL and Judge RODOWSKY authorize me to state that they join in this dissent.