535:. The right, under legislation, has been renamed to reflect the fact that it is a right of the client. It is now client legal privilege (as opposed to legal professional privilege). The courts regard privilege as a "substantive general principle which plays an important role in the effective and efficient administration of justice by the courts", not a mere rule of evidence. As such, it extends to all forms of compulsory disclosure, including search warrants. Furthermore, although the legislature may restrict privilege "the law ease the way for the legislature to ".
514:
of justice, which cannot be upholden, and to the administration of justice, which cannot go on without the aid of men skilled in jurisprudence, in the practice of the courts, and in those matters affecting rights and obligations which form the subject of all judicial proceedings. If the privilege did not exist at all, every one would be thrown upon his own legal resources, deprived of professional assistance, a man would not venture to consult any skilful person, or would only dare tell his counsellor half his case".
728:, not all state courts treat attorney communications as privileged. For instance, Washington state law and the federal courts in applying federal law protect client only communications; an attorney's communication is protected as privileged only to the extent that it contains or reveals the client's communications. In contrast, California state law protects the attorney's confidential communications regardless of whether they contain, refer to, or reveal the client's communications. In addition, the
650:('CPR') Rule 31.15 establishes a right to inspect documents in civil litigation, and provide that a party to whom a document has been disclosed (i.e. mentioned or relied upon in litigation) has a right to inspect that document (if such inspection would be proportionate given the nature of the case) - except where the party making disclosure has the right to withhold such inspection.
691:
prohibits—subject to potential waiver by the client—the disclosure of client-third party and lawyer-third party communications made in preparation of contemplated or pending litigation, including during settlement negotiations. The
Turkish Advocacy Code's rationale for the rules of legal professional
499:
The principle originated as protection for individuals when accessing the knowledge and legal resources available to a lawyer and was said to stem from the "oath and honour" of the lawyer, a sort of special contractual relationship. It was based on the fact that the ordinary citizen could not safely
670:
regulate solicitors in respect of it. The SRA produces a Code of
Conduct. For Advocates, this matter is regulated by the Faculty of Advocates Code of Conduct. In October 2022, the Scottish Inner House of the Court of Session (highest domestic appeal court) determined that materials subject to legal
620:
3. When the law gives someone the authority to do something which, in the circumstances of the case, might interfere with that confidentiality, the decision to do so and the choice of means of exercising that authority should be determined with a view to not interfering with it except to the extent
513:
The foundation of this rule is not difficult to discover. It is not (as has sometimes been said) on account of any particular importance which the law attributes to the business of legal professors, or any particular disposition to afford them protection ... But it is out of regard to the interests
592:
Where legal advice of any kind is sought from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, the communications relating to that purpose, made in confidence by the client, are at his instance permanently protected from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, except the protection be
948:
The protection of privilege is not intended to extend to the relationship between a person and another who is not in fact a qualifies and practising lawyer, save in exceptional circumstances like those which arose in the Calley case, which is completely different from the current case: here, the
530:
The
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and identical provisions in the Evidence Act 1995 of NSW and Tasmania now control when privilege prevents evidence is adduced during trial in any court (as defined by a proceeding bound by the laws of evidence). The rules of court in NSW extends the definitions in the
614:
2. Unless the law provides otherwise, when and to the extent that the legitimate exercise of a right would interfere with another person's right to have his communications with his lawyer kept confidential, the resulting conflict should be resolved in favour of protecting the
653:
One of these rights is legal professional privilege. It is a privilege that attaches to the client (not to the lawyer) in a client–lawyer relationship. It does not extend to advisors who are not legally qualified. It may only, therefore, be waived by the client. In the
471:
The purpose behind this legal principle is to protect an individual's ability to access the justice system by encouraging complete disclosure to legal advisers without the fear that any disclosure of those communications may prejudice the client in the future.
490:
Thomas Hawtry, gentleman, was served with a subpoena to testify his knowledge touching the cause in variance; and made oath that he hath been, and yet is a solicitor in this suit, and hath received several fees of the defendant; which being informed to the
500:
navigate the complexities of the law and justice system without some assistance. However, without protection the quality of the advice would suffer as clients would be discouraged from making full disclosure to their legal representatives. As
949:
Defendants had no good reason to believe that they were employing solicitors or barristers because they were employing
Knowles which does not profess to be offering the services of qualified practising solicitors and barristers.
495:, it is ordered that the said Thomas Hawtry shall not be compelled to be deposed, touching the same; and that he shall be in no danger of any contempt, touching the not executing of the same process.
154:
561:, in tracing its history, regarded it as a "fundamental civil and legal right" that guaranteed clients a right to privacy in their communications with their lawyers, even outside a courtroom.
609:
1. The confidentiality of communications between solicitor and client may be raised in any circumstances where such communications are likely to be disclosed without the client's consent.
480:
The common law principle of legal professional privilege is of extremely long standing. The earliest recorded instance of the principle in
English case-law dates from 1577 in the case of
658:, legal professional privilege is divided into two types: advice privilege, and litigation privilege, the former category being more absolutely and broadly-defined than the latter.
637:
35:
1071:
687:
prohibits—subject to potential waiver by the client—the disclosure of lawyer-client communications made for the purpose of obtaining and giving legal advice.
998:
501:
525:
39:
468:) and his or her clients from being disclosed without the permission of the client. The privilege is that of the client and not that of the lawyer.
626:
4. Acts providing otherwise in situations under paragraph 2 and enabling legislation referred to in paragraph 3 must be interpreted restrictively.
576:
431:
1231:
738:
789:
671:
professional privilege could not be used by the
Scottish Legal Complaints Commission for its investigations without client consent.
1241:
997:
Scottish Legal
Complaints Commission v (1) D R Murray and J A McCusker (2) The Faculty of Advocates and The Law Society of Scotland
571:
1185:
1180:
1190:
1154:
708:
31:
999:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2022csih46.pdf?sfvrsn=e89aeb8_1
985:
339:
304:
207:
729:
551:
but has since become recognized as a substantive rule that is constitutionally protected. This recognition began with
961:
647:
424:
314:
784:
217:
106:
1236:
1215:
758:
655:
600:
449:
344:
1210:
1200:
1170:
532:
548:
299:
159:
121:
101:
696:
enables lawyers to accurately encourage strong cases, which improves the efficiency of the legal system.
417:
270:
174:
144:
139:
907:
280:
1160:
721:
693:
680:
482:
255:
240:
183:
96:
91:
76:
1175:
566:
492:
260:
396:
245:
202:
164:
666:
Legal professional privilege applies in
Scotland. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and
1205:
643:
361:
324:
319:
265:
250:
149:
1012:"Court of Session rules legal professional privilege not overridden by third party complaint"
1042:
356:
334:
309:
235:
212:
192:
86:
1165:
329:
197:
130:
116:
30:
This article is an overview of the privilege in common law. For specific information, see
17:
1126:
931:
724:
encourages open and honest communication between clients and attorneys. However, in the
750:
Privilege cannot be relied upon where the communication is used to facilitate a crime.
544:
275:
169:
48:
1225:
986:
https://www.advocates.org.uk/media/3199/guide-to-conduct-7th-edition-october-2019.pdf
725:
621:
absolutely necessary in order to achieve the ends sought by the enabling legislation.
558:
553:
111:
81:
699:
There is a fraud exception to both litigation privilege and legal advice privilege.
584:
405:
391:
785:"The English Law of Legal Professional Privilege - A Guide for American Attorneys"
720:
and keeps the communications confidential in both civil and criminal cases. The
716:
is a legal concept that protects communications between a client and his or her
1195:
445:
371:
350:
761:
jurisdictions approach privilege differently from common law jurisdictions.
732:
has ruled that the privilege generally does not terminate upon the client's
461:
457:
400:
71:
646:, the rules on legal professional privilege are set out in common law. The
908:"PART 31 - DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS - Civil Procedure Rules"
888:
Evidence in Trials at Common Law, vol. 8 (McNaughton rev. 1961) at p. 543
381:
289:
226:
717:
465:
570:
1 S.C.R. 445, the Court found that solicitor–client privilege was a
456:
protects all communications between a professional legal adviser (a
679:
The
Turkish Advocacy Code outlines two types of legal professional
765:
733:
667:
598:
Justice Lamer set out the test for solicitor–client privilege in
386:
1104:
In the UK: Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 section 10(2)
1011:
56:
574:, hinting that it may be protected under Section 7 of the
1121:
1119:
1113:
In Australia: R v Bell; Ex parte Lees (1980) 146 CLR 141
543:
Solicitor–client privilege was initially a common law
962:"SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs"
683:: legal advice privilege and litigation privilege.
934:Walter Lilly & Company Ltd v Mackay & Anor
790:Loyola University Chicago International Law Review
797:: 40. 2006 – via Loyola University Chicago.
638:Legal professional privilege in England and Wales
36:legal professional privilege in England and Wales
1072:"Litigation and enforcement in Turkey: overview"
488:
587:'s definition of solicitor client privilege:
425:
8:
768:, do not have legal professional privilege.
843:MM v Australian Crime Commission FCA 2026,
432:
418:
44:
936:[2012] EWHC 649 (TCC) at para 17"
583:In its general sense, Canada has adopted
526:Legal professional privilege in Australia
40:Legal professional privilege in Australia
1043:"Rules of Procedure: The Advocacy Code"
1037:
1035:
1033:
1031:
776:
369:
288:
225:
182:
129:
63:
47:
739:Swidler & Berlin v. United States
7:
25:
486:the full report of which states:
1070:Baysal, Pelin (3 January 2019).
572:principle of fundamental justice
27:Secrecy of law advice to clients
531:Evidence Act to discovery and
1:
1232:Legal professional privilege
685:Legal professional privilege
454:legal professional privilege
340:Declaration against interest
208:Self-authenticating document
1186:Physician–patient privilege
1181:Accountant–client privilege
730:United States Supreme Court
668:the Law Society of Scotland
1258:
1157:, the American equivalent.
754:In civil law jurisdictions
706:
648:Civil Procedure Rules 1998
635:
523:
29:
18:Solicitor-client privilege
1191:Priest–penitent privilege
1155:Attorney–client privilege
1131:signon.thomsonreuters.com
1127:"Privilege: a world tour"
714:Attorney–client privilege
709:Attorney–client privilege
218:Hague Evidence Convention
107:Eyewitness identification
32:attorney–client privilege
1242:Privileged communication
1216:Public Interest Immunity
938:. BAILII. March 15, 2012
764:Some countries, such as
656:law of England and Wales
601:Decoteaux v. Mierzwinski
345:Present sense impression
155:Public policy exclusions
1211:State Secrets Privilege
1171:Duty of confidentiality
1016:Law Society of Scotland
1001:Retrieved 17 March 2024
988:Retrieved 17 March 2024
533:inspection of documents
448:jurisdictions and some
517:
497:
122:Consciousness of guilt
557:(1979) where Justice
547:principle similar to
510:
271:Recorded recollection
1201:Reporters' Privilege
1161:Privilege (evidence)
1095:524 U.S. 399 (1998).
820:Greenough v. Gaskell
689:Litigation privilege
305:in United States law
1176:Admissible evidence
506:Greenough v Gaskell
493:Master of the Rolls
145:Laying a foundation
1050:global.tbmm.gov.tr
912:www.justice.gov.uk
692:privilege is that
401:trusts and estates
281:Dead Man's Statute
246:Direct examination
203:Best evidence rule
1206:Spousal privilege
855:(1983) 153 CLR 52
834:(1995) 185 CLR 83
644:England and Wales
632:England and Wales
442:
441:
362:Implied assertion
325:Dying declaration
320:Excited utterance
266:Proffer agreement
251:Cross-examination
64:Types of evidence
34:(United States);
16:(Redirected from
1249:
1142:
1141:
1139:
1137:
1123:
1114:
1111:
1105:
1102:
1096:
1093:
1087:
1086:
1084:
1082:
1067:
1061:
1060:
1058:
1056:
1047:
1039:
1026:
1025:
1023:
1022:
1008:
1002:
995:
989:
983:
977:
976:
974:
973:
958:
952:
951:
945:
943:
928:
922:
921:
919:
918:
904:
898:
895:
889:
886:
880:
874:
868:
862:
856:
853:Baker v Campbell
850:
844:
841:
835:
829:
823:
822:, 1 M & K 98
817:
811:
805:
799:
798:
781:
615:confidentiality.
434:
427:
420:
357:Learned treatise
335:Ancient document
315:Business records
213:Ancient document
193:Chain of custody
45:
21:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1237:Confidentiality
1222:
1221:
1220:
1166:Confidentiality
1150:
1145:
1135:
1133:
1125:
1124:
1117:
1112:
1108:
1103:
1099:
1094:
1090:
1080:
1078:
1069:
1068:
1064:
1054:
1052:
1045:
1041:
1040:
1029:
1020:
1018:
1010:
1009:
1005:
996:
992:
984:
980:
971:
969:
960:
959:
955:
941:
939:
930:
929:
925:
916:
914:
906:
905:
901:
896:
892:
887:
883:
875:
871:
863:
859:
851:
847:
842:
838:
830:
826:
818:
814:
808:Berd v Lovelace
806:
802:
783:
782:
778:
774:
756:
748:
711:
705:
694:confidentiality
677:
664:
640:
634:
541:
528:
522:
483:Berd v Lovelace
478:
452:jurisdictions,
438:
330:Party admission
198:Judicial notice
140:Burden of proof
82:Real (physical)
43:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1255:
1253:
1245:
1244:
1239:
1234:
1224:
1223:
1219:
1218:
1213:
1208:
1203:
1198:
1193:
1188:
1183:
1178:
1173:
1168:
1163:
1158:
1151:
1149:
1146:
1144:
1143:
1115:
1106:
1097:
1088:
1062:
1027:
1003:
990:
978:
966:www.sra.org.uk
953:
923:
899:
890:
881:
869:
857:
845:
836:
824:
812:
800:
775:
773:
770:
755:
752:
747:
744:
707:Main article:
704:
701:
676:
673:
663:
660:
636:Main article:
633:
630:
629:
628:
623:
617:
611:
596:
595:
540:
537:
524:Main article:
521:
518:
477:
474:
440:
439:
437:
436:
429:
422:
414:
411:
410:
409:
408:
403:
394:
389:
384:
376:
375:
367:
366:
365:
364:
359:
354:
347:
342:
337:
332:
327:
322:
317:
312:
307:
302:
300:in English law
294:
293:
292:and exceptions
286:
285:
284:
283:
278:
276:Expert witness
273:
268:
263:
258:
253:
248:
243:
238:
230:
229:
223:
222:
221:
220:
215:
210:
205:
200:
195:
187:
186:
184:Authentication
180:
179:
178:
177:
172:
167:
162:
157:
152:
147:
142:
134:
133:
127:
126:
125:
124:
119:
114:
109:
104:
99:
94:
89:
84:
79:
74:
66:
65:
61:
60:
52:
51:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1254:
1243:
1240:
1238:
1235:
1233:
1230:
1229:
1227:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1209:
1207:
1204:
1202:
1199:
1197:
1194:
1192:
1189:
1187:
1184:
1182:
1179:
1177:
1174:
1172:
1169:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1159:
1156:
1153:
1152:
1147:
1132:
1128:
1122:
1120:
1116:
1110:
1107:
1101:
1098:
1092:
1089:
1077:
1073:
1066:
1063:
1051:
1044:
1038:
1036:
1034:
1032:
1028:
1017:
1013:
1007:
1004:
1000:
994:
991:
987:
982:
979:
967:
963:
957:
954:
950:
937:
935:
927:
924:
913:
909:
903:
900:
894:
891:
885:
882:
878:
873:
870:
866:
861:
858:
854:
849:
846:
840:
837:
833:
832:Goldberg v Ng
828:
825:
821:
816:
813:
809:
804:
801:
796:
792:
791:
786:
780:
777:
771:
769:
767:
762:
760:
753:
751:
745:
743:
741:
740:
735:
731:
727:
726:United States
723:
719:
715:
710:
703:United States
702:
700:
697:
695:
690:
686:
682:
674:
672:
669:
661:
659:
657:
651:
649:
645:
639:
631:
627:
624:
622:
618:
616:
612:
610:
607:
606:
605:
603:
602:
594:
590:
589:
588:
586:
581:
579:
578:
573:
569:
568:
567:R. v. McClure
562:
560:
556:
555:
554:R. v. Solosky
550:
546:
538:
536:
534:
527:
519:
516:
515:
509:
507:
503:
502:Lord Brougham
496:
494:
487:
485:
484:
475:
473:
469:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
435:
430:
428:
423:
421:
416:
415:
413:
412:
407:
404:
402:
398:
395:
393:
390:
388:
385:
383:
380:
379:
378:
377:
373:
368:
363:
360:
358:
355:
353:
352:
348:
346:
343:
341:
338:
336:
333:
331:
328:
326:
323:
321:
318:
316:
313:
311:
308:
306:
303:
301:
298:
297:
296:
295:
291:
287:
282:
279:
277:
274:
272:
269:
267:
264:
262:
259:
257:
254:
252:
249:
247:
244:
242:
239:
237:
234:
233:
232:
231:
228:
224:
219:
216:
214:
211:
209:
206:
204:
201:
199:
196:
194:
191:
190:
189:
188:
185:
181:
176:
173:
171:
168:
166:
163:
161:
158:
156:
153:
151:
148:
146:
143:
141:
138:
137:
136:
135:
132:
128:
123:
120:
118:
115:
113:
112:Genetic (DNA)
110:
108:
105:
103:
102:Demonstrative
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
69:
68:
67:
62:
58:
54:
53:
50:
46:
41:
37:
33:
19:
1134:. Retrieved
1130:
1109:
1100:
1091:
1079:. Retrieved
1075:
1065:
1053:. Retrieved
1049:
1019:. Retrieved
1015:
1006:
993:
981:
970:. Retrieved
968:. 2023-04-06
965:
956:
947:
940:. Retrieved
933:
926:
915:. Retrieved
911:
902:
893:
884:
876:
872:
864:
860:
852:
848:
839:
831:
827:
819:
815:
807:
803:
794:
788:
779:
763:
757:
749:
737:
713:
712:
698:
688:
684:
678:
665:
652:
641:
625:
619:
613:
608:
599:
597:
591:
585:John Wigmore
582:
575:
565:
563:
552:
542:
529:
512:
511:
505:
498:
489:
481:
479:
470:
453:
443:
406:Criminal law
349:
175:Similar fact
55:Part of the
1196:Shield laws
1081:28 December
1055:28 December
545:evidentiary
310:Confessions
261:Impeachment
150:Materiality
97:Inculpatory
92:Exculpatory
77:Documentary
1226:Categories
1021:2024-03-17
972:2024-03-17
942:August 25,
917:2020-11-15
772:References
746:Exceptions
504:put it in
446:common law
372:common law
351:Res gestae
236:Competence
160:Spoliation
759:Civil law
722:privilege
681:privilege
520:Australia
462:barrister
458:solicitor
450:civil law
241:Privilege
227:Witnesses
165:Character
131:Relevance
72:Testimony
1148:See also
1136:17 March
879:, at 839
718:attorney
662:Scotland
508:(1833):
466:attorney
392:Property
382:Contract
256:Redirect
49:Evidence
1076:Westlaw
877:Solosky
810:Cary 62
593:waived.
577:Charter
559:Dickson
549:hearsay
476:History
290:Hearsay
87:Digital
897:p. 875
867:at 131
736:. See
675:Turkey
539:Canada
370:Other
59:series
38:, and
1046:(PDF)
865:Baker
766:China
734:death
397:Wills
374:areas
170:Habit
1138:2021
1083:2020
1057:2020
944:2019
387:Tort
117:Lies
642:In
564:In
464:or
444:In
57:law
1228::
1129:.
1118:^
1074:.
1048:.
1030:^
1014:.
964:.
946:.
910:.
793:.
787:.
742:.
604::
580:.
460:,
399:,
1140:.
1085:.
1059:.
1024:.
975:.
932:"
920:.
795:4
433:e
426:t
419:v
42:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.