Free Law Dissertations - Legal Professional Privilege Legal Professional Privilege (lpp) Is Defines
LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE
Legal professional privilege (LPP) is defines as an immunity that protects confidential communication between a solicitor and their client as identified in R v. Special Commissioner and Anar [2002](1). Documents or other materials that are classified as professional privilege are not subject to disclosure to third parties without the consent of the client in question.
Only confidential communication is subject to LPP if it falls into either of the two heads of privilege, namely, advice privilege and litigation privilege. According to R v. Inner London Crown Court [1988](2) conveyancing documents are not communications hence not protected under LPP neither is a client’s account ledger maintained in relations to the client’s money National Building Society v. Various Solicitors [1999](3) since their not created for the purposes of giving advise. However, advice relating to conveyancing matters are considered as legally privileged distinctive from conveyancing documents. An appointment diary or time record on an attendance note, time sheet or fee record relating to the client R v. Manchester Crown Court ex p Rogers [1999](4) is not considered as being legal professional privileged(5).
On the contrary, there are circumstances which override confidentiality between the solicitor and his/her client. One of the circumstances include an instance where the client uses the solicitor to facilitate the commission of a crime or fraud. Nonetheless, if an order or a warrant is being executed to seize legally privileged information, the solicitor has a right to make an application to the court on behalf of the client to prevent the seizure of such documents on the basis that the order infringes the clients right to privacy under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights as in Niemitz v. Germany.
Documents forming part of a fraudulent or criminal act does not fall with the LPP and thus subject to disclosure R v. Cox & Railton (1884)(6). Furthermore, it is irrelevant whether or not the solicitor is aware that s/he is being for the purposes of commissioning a criminal activity Banque Keyser Ullman v. Scandia [1986](7).
If an application is made by the police under section 9 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) for a production order, the courts have indicated in Barclays Bank Plc v. Taylor; Trustee Savings Bank of Wales and Border Counties v. Taylor [1989](8) where banks were reminded to comply with the production order issued by the court as being effective and overriding privilege.
In the recent House of Lords case, Walsh Automation v. Bridgeman and Others privilege was overridden by Fraud Exception.
Dissertations - Free Law Dissertations
