header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 February 2020 / Amanda Hamilton , Jane Robson
Issue: 7874 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

It pays to be privileged

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
15654
Where do today’s professional paralegals stand when it comes to legal professional privilege? Amanda Hamilton & Jane Robson report
  • The significance of legal professional privilege.
  • Why is it not clear that privilege extends to the relationship between a client and their lawyer if that lawyer is a paralegal?
  • The grey area: no guarantees of legal professional privilege.

‘Are paralegals covered by legal professional privilege?’ My ears pricked up when this interesting and important question was raised in the office this week.

Well, those paralegals who work for solicitors and barristers are covered under their employer’s umbrella, but what about those paralegals who work as independent legal advisers? Where do they fall?

Under the Legal Services Act 2007, provision of legal advice is no longer a reserved activity (ie, one that can only be undertaken by an ‘authorised’ person or body, such as a solicitor, barrister, legal executive or actuary, etc). If you couple that with the virtual removal of the availability of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll