關於法院之告知義務，國內多數說與最高法院89年度臺上字第2091號民事判決相同，一致主張：「證人得拒絕證言者，審判長（或獨任法官）應於訊問前或於訊問中知有前述得拒絕證言之情形時，向證人告知之。…惟此乃訓示規定，其未經為此告知而訊問證人者，法院仍得斟酌其證言為裁判基礎，當事人不得以此為上訴之理由」。 但不同見解主張，為促使法院為公正程序之審判，應認為法院違反告知義務而訊問之，該等證詞似應有證據禁止之適用。 造成上述爭議之原因，可能來自於，立法者雖於民訴法第307條第2項明白寫著：「得拒絕證言者，審判長應於訊問前或知有前項情形時告知之。」但後續條文並無針對法院違反告知義務之行為做特別之效力規定。 故關於最高法院之主張，本文認為，是否民事訴訟法未規範違反告知義務之效力，即可反證該規定僅為一無拘束力之訓示規定？乃有必要進一步分析之。

There is no privilege for confidential communications in general. The investigation of facts, for researching the truth in the administration of justice, would be intolerably obstructed by such a general privilege. The duty to disclosetestimonially applies to all kinds of persons and facts however private and confidential may be their status for other purposes. Hence there is no privilege for confidential communications to a banker, a journalist, a trustee, a secretary, or any other person. Nor is there any privilege for zommunications made by mail or by telegram or by radio