Thanks, these were interesting reading. As noted, I'm not a US lawyer, only here in the UK.
As to the "fraud" argument - which is that the document should be admissible because it is part of the cover up of a crime: Clients are, of course, entitled to tell their attorney that they are guilty of the crime in question, and that information is privileged, and the attorney can go about defending them in the normal way, subject to perjury etc. (so, the attorney in that instance cannot lie to the court about his client's innocence). And Ronaldo was, of course, entitled to settle this matter by agreement with the alleged victim.
If the document in question is a genuine questionnaire used by Ronaldo's lawyers to ascertain his account of what happened that night, and he does admit to what would constitute a crime, that alone won't be enough, as I understand it. There would need to be something more. The document would need itself to be used in furtherance of a crime, and I can't see how that would be the case here.
As to the "hacking" argument: I obviously haven't read the authorities in question, but this is one of those cases where technology and "new" social behaviour (hacking) has outpaced case law and, perhaps, legislators. But hacking is simply a modern form of theft, and I find it very hard to believe that a document would lose its privilege simply because a third party has stolen and published it, through no fault of the client or their attorney. If it were otherwise, one could easily imagine an underground cottage industry of hackers targeting law firms and selling/publishing stolen material.
