The attorney-client privilege, sometimes called ‘lawyer-client privilege’, or ‘legal professional privilege’ is a rule of law that protects communications between attorneys and their clients. It means that a client may, and his lawyer must, refuse to give evidence in legal proceedings about what was said or written between them. Neither the lawyer nor his client can be compelled by any court (or any other authority for that matter) to disclose or answer questions about any communication between them. This privilege arises in a lawyer-client relationship regardless of the matter at hand – whether it is a criminal matter, a civil or commercial matter, a family matter or any other matter.
It is important to note that the attorney-client privilege does not extend to communication about a plan to commit a crime in the future – if a client goes to a lawyer asking for legal ‘advice’ on how to commit crime X, the lawyer may of course (in fact often he has a duty to) report the client to the authorities.
In addition to the attorney-client privilege, many legal systems recognise other forms of privilege, such as the ‘privilege against self-incrimination’, ‘doctor-patient privilege’, and ‘public interest immunity’ privilege to protect undercover intelligence officers or secret service agents. The crucial point, however, is that all these other privileges can often be overridden where there is good reason. For example even public interest immunity can be prised open if it is necessary to get the information to prevent the conviction of an innocent person. Attorney-client privilege, by contrast, can almost never be overridden – even when the privileged communication can conclusively prove the innocence of another person about to be wrongly convicted for, say, murder – which in some places carries a death sentence. This near-absolute nature of the attorney-client privilege is not only unusual but extremely controversial.
Is attorney-client confidentiality necessary?
Link from where question was taken:http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=308
It is important to note that the attorney-client privilege does not extend to communication about a plan to commit a crime in the future – if a client goes to a lawyer asking for legal ‘advice’ on how to commit crime X, the lawyer may of course (in fact often he has a duty to) report the client to the authorities.
In addition to the attorney-client privilege, many legal systems recognise other forms of privilege, such as the ‘privilege against self-incrimination’, ‘doctor-patient privilege’, and ‘public interest immunity’ privilege to protect undercover intelligence officers or secret service agents. The crucial point, however, is that all these other privileges can often be overridden where there is good reason. For example even public interest immunity can be prised open if it is necessary to get the information to prevent the conviction of an innocent person. Attorney-client privilege, by contrast, can almost never be overridden – even when the privileged communication can conclusively prove the innocence of another person about to be wrongly convicted for, say, murder – which in some places carries a death sentence. This near-absolute nature of the attorney-client privilege is not only unusual but extremely controversial.
Is attorney-client confidentiality necessary?
Link from where question was taken:http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=308
