Concurring. — I join in the majority decision both as to the right of prison inmates to confidential correspondence with members of the State Bar of California and as to the conclusion that the right extends to correspondence with out-of-state attorneys with whom an *582attorney-client relationship exists. However, the majority hold only that a prisoner and his out-of-state attorney may correspond confidentially after an attorney-client relationship has been established. Implicit in the right to communicate confidentially with one’s attorney is the right to confidentiality in those communications in which a prospective client solicits representation by an attorney. Since the majority do not expressly deny the right to confidentiality in those communications in which a prisoner seeks to retain the services of an out-of-state attorney, I interpret - the holding of the majority to include such a right.

The right of a prison inmate to representation by counsel1 extends to all matters, whether denominated civil or criminal, in which he retains his right of access to the courts. As the majority recognize this right exists at least as to pending criminal matters, applications for extraordinary relief, and matters related to the conditions of confinement. (See, e.g., In re Ferguson (1961) 55 Cal.2d 663 [12 Cal.Rptr. 753, 361 P.2d 417].)

A prisoner’s right of access to the court for the purpose of redressing his rights necessarily includes the right to retain counsel to act for him. (In re Ferguson, supra, 55 Cal.2d 663.) Censorship of communications in which the prisoner seeks to obtain counsel unreasonably erodes the right of access to the courts by restricting the ability of the prisoner to fully and frankly set forth the factual matters upon which his claim is based. (Id.., at p. 677.) Invasion of the confidential nature of the correspondence between a prisoner and an attorney whom he seeks to retain cannot be distinguished from censorship in its burden on the prisoner’s right of access to the courts. It would be naive to assume, for instance, that a prisoner who accuses institutional officials of improprieties will freely commit his charges to paper knowing that the same officials who daily supervise his every activity will read that letter. Since, as the majority acknowledges, the right to confidential communication with a retained out-of-state attorney may not be infringed, it follows that the confidentiality of prisoner communications seeking to retain out-of-state counsel also may not be infringed.

Although it has been suggested that review of prisoner mail to out-of-state attorneys is necessary to insure that the correspondence relates to *583matters as to which the prisoner retains his right of access to the courts, i.e., to matters that are not purely civil litigation, it is difficult to believe that the number of such attempted purely civil communications is sufficient to warrant the restriction of confidentiality of attorney mail generally. No such objection is made with regard to correspondence addressed to California attorneys. Prisoners who are usually laymen, many of whom lack advanced education, cannot be expected to assess their claims to determine whether they are “purely civil.” If the purpose of restricting communications relevant to “purely civil” matters is to implement the civil death statute (Pen. Code, § 2600) that purpose can be adequately served by enclosing with letters addressed to counsel who have not yet been retained a notice regarding the areas in which California prison inmates lack capacity to sue.

Opinion

In this case we consider the scope of the attorney-inmate confidential correspondence privilege set forth in Penal Code section 2600, subdivision (2).1 We are asked to determine whether Director’s Rule 2406,2 *578under which the Department of Corrections treats all printed enclosures in attorney-inmate mail as nonprivileged material, is consistent with the statutory rights afforded prisoners by section 2600. We have concluded that Director’s Rule 2406, to the extent that it authorizes prison authorities to read printed enclosures in attorney-inmate correspondence, is inconsistent with section 2600, subdivision (2), and therefore is invalid.

Petitioner is an inmate at California Medical Facility, Vacaville, having been convicted of violating Penal Code sections 207 (kidnaping) and 286 (sodomy). He does not challenge the validity of his convictions but seeks habeas corpus to vindicate rights to which he is allegedly entitled in confinement. (See In re Harrell, 2 Cal.3d 675, 682 [87 Cal.Rptr. 504, 470 P.2d 640].) Specifically petitioner attacks the Department of Corrections policy of reading all “enclosures” in attorney-inmate mail.3 Petitioner argues that this enclosure exception to the attorney-inmate correspondence privilege violates his rights under Penal. Code section 2600 as recently interpreted by- this court in In re Jordan, 7 Cal.3d 930 [103 Cal.Rptr. 849, 500 P.2d 873].4

In Jordan, supra, we held that section 2600, subdivision (2), which permits prison authorities to open and inspect attorney-inmate mail to search for contraband, did not allow the reading of privileged mail in search of “verbal contraband.” We noted that the Legislature’s primary objective was preservation of confidentality and that it was necessary to restrict contraband to “physical matter” so as not to emasculate the. section. (7 Cal.3d at p. 936.)

*579In re Jordan, supra, 7 Cal.3d 930, did not directly involve the issue now raised, namely, what type of physical matter in addition to the attorney-inmate letter is to be considered confidential correspondence protected from examination. The case nevertheless provides guidelines to be followed in construing section 2600, subdivision (2). We said (at p. 936), “It is clear that the Legislature in authorizing inspections for contraband did not contemplate the censoring of attorney mail because of its content; such an interpretation would have patently defeated the confidentiality guaranteed by section 2600. We agree that the Department of Corrections has a legitimate interest in excluding from the prisons weapons, drugs, and other tangible items posing threats to prison security. But to limit the subject matter of inmate-attorney mail and to inspect such mail to ensure that the limitations are adhered to emasculates the confidentiality provision of section 2600.” (Italics in original.) We also noted that there appears to be only a remote and wholly speculative danger that an attorney, sworn to obey the laws of this state, would assist a prisoner in avoiding legitimate prison regulations (id., p. 937) or conspire in plots that threaten prison security (id., p. 938). Throughout our opinion we expressed a deep concern for maintaining confidentiality and our trust in the integrity of attorneys.

It seems clear that printed enclosures such as Xeroxed cases and law review articles are not the types of tangible items which the Legislature contemplated as posing a serious threat to prison security.5 In any event the department’s policy regarding enclosures can have only minimal salutary effect given the relative ease of circumventing the rule. Presumably, under the current department policy, the attorney need only transcribe the printed matter in any enclosure onto his legal stationery and it would pass unread. Likewise, the fact that personal interviews with attorneys are not subject to auditory monitoring6 emphasizes the futility of reading all enclosures in attorney mail in the hope of frustrating escape plans and avoiding violence. As we said in In re Jordan, supra, 7 Cal.3d 930, 938, “The determined conspirator who can hatch his plots during personal visits will be only slightly hindered, but not deterred, by a rule that hinders plotting by mail.”

In construing section 2600, subdivision (2), we must consider the strong *580policy favoring the attorney-client privilege.7 In In re Jordan, supra, 7 Cal.3d 930, 940-941, we pointed out that . . the protection of confidences and secrets is not a rule of mere professional conduct, but instead involves public policies of paramount importance which are reflected in numerous statutes.”8 As examination of printed enclosures would not significantly enhance prison security, it seems doubtful that the Legislature intended to undermine the policy favoring the confidentiality of attorney-client communications by permitting unrestricted examination of such materials.

The People argue that, even under the rationale of our decision in Jordan, supra, those printed enclosures which are publicátions cannot be regarded as communications from anyone except the author or writer. This contention is not persuasive, particularly in light of the broad definition of “confidential communication” set forth in section 952 of the Evidence Code. That section in pertinent part provides: “As used in this article, ‘confidential communication between client and lawyer’ means information transmitted between a client and his lawyer in the course of that relationship . . . and includes a legal opinion formed and the advice given by the, lawyer . . . .” (Italics added.) Certainly a law review article or a newspaper clipping of potential use to the inmate-client is information of the type' properly protected by the privilege.

Nor are we persuaded by the People’s contention that a publication which is in the public domain is somehow per se nonconfidential. Once an attorney has determined that a particular publication is relevant to his inmate-client’s case, that publication may become an integral part of the attorney’s legal advice or strategy and, as such, it would be entitled to section 2600, subdivision (2), protection.

Petitioner also challenges the Department of Corrections policy limiting the attorney-inmate confidential correspondence privilege to members *581of the California State Bar.9 First he argues that such a limitation is inconsistent with Evidence Code sections 950 and 954 (lawyer-client privilege). Although “lawyer” is defined in section 950 to include those “authorized to practice law in any state or nation,” Penal Code section 2600, subdivision (2) (fn. 1, ante), which sets forth the civil right statutorily restored to prisoners is limited to “any member of the State Bar, or holder of public office.” Therefore, the department’s policy seems consistent with the language of section 2600. Petitioner, however, asserts that prisoners have a constitutional right to correspond confidentially with out-of-state attorneys.10 Petitioner does not indicate his reasons for seeking counsel and makes only a general allegation that his correspondence with out-of-state attorneys is severely inhibited. Without attempting to decide in the abstract the full extent of petitioner’s rights in this regard, we hold that confidential correspondence is to be permitted, even though no California court order has been obtained, if the out-of-state attorney makes a reasonable showing to the prison authorities: (1) That he is duly authorized to practice law in his state; (2) that an attorney-client relationship exists; and (3) that this relationship concerns a pending criminal matter, or the conditions* of his client’s confinement, including any related application for extraordinary relief.11

Respondent is directed to cease enforcing Director’s Rule 2406 of the Department of Corrections to the extent it is inconsistent with the views expressed herein.