header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

LPP: handle with care

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
19 May 2017 / David Owen
Categories: Features , Profession , Litigation trends
printer mail-detail

Erosion of privilege—are we at the thin end of the wedge, asks David Owen

In its February 2017 guidance note Legal Professional Privilege, the Law Society said: ‘Legal professional privilege (LPP) is one of the highest rights recognised by English law. It arises when clients approach lawyers for legal advice or for assistance with resolving contentious issues. LPP, which has existed for over 400 years, is treated under English law as a fundamental common law right and as a human right. It is a necessary corollary of the right of every person to seek legal advice and it plays a crucial role in ensuring the proper administration of our justice system. Accordingly, it is a precious right, vigorously protected by our judiciary and usually treated with the utmost respect by parliament when it legislates.’

The Law Society felt compelled to issue such strongly worded guidance in response to the significant challenges faced by LPP, a fundamental right which, it is important to remember, belongs to clients not lawyers.

The challenges have

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
WSP Solicitors—Amie Williamson

WSP Solicitors—Amie Williamson

Gloucestershire firm boosts residential conveyancing team

mfg Solicitors—Andrew Johnson

mfg Solicitors—Andrew Johnson

Firm strengthens corporate team in Worcester with new hire

London Market FOIL—Ling Ong

London Market FOIL—Ling Ong

Weightmans partner appointed president of London Market Forum of Insurance Lawyers

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
NLJ this week: Failure to deliver in Getty v Stability AI
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
NLJ this week: Spotlight on the Supreme Court in 2025
The UK Supreme Court may be deciding fewer cases, but its impact in 2025 was anything but muted. In this week's NLJ, Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson of Queen’s University Belfast reviews a year marked by historically low output, a striking rise in jointly authored judgments, and a continued decline in dissent. High-profile rulings on biological sex under the Equality Act, public access to Dartmoor, and fairness in sexual offence trials ensured the court’s voice carried far beyond the Strand
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll