Legal advice privilege: The legacy of Three Rivers (No. 5) and the challenge of providing consistent protection to all client types

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2022-02-17 DOI:10.1177/13657127221077330
M. Stockdale, R. Mitchell
{"title":"Legal advice privilege: The legacy of Three Rivers (No. 5) and the challenge of providing consistent protection to all client types","authors":"M. Stockdale, R. Mitchell","doi":"10.1177/13657127221077330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Legal advice privilege operates in the corporate context subject to a dominant purpose test and an agency-based control mechanism. This mechanism fails to reflect the privilege's rationale and prevents the dominant purpose test from giving corporations the same level of protection that the privilege provides to other client types. Following analysis of approaches in other common law jurisdictions, this article concludes that the optimum control mechanism for English Law is the dominant purpose test unfettered by the agency-based control mechanism and extended to encompass third parties. It is the first significant attempt to consider the merits of the agency-based control mechanism since the operation of the dominant purpose test in this context was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. It rebuts the suggestion by some academics that legal advice privilege should be restricted in the corporate context by asserting that it is by expansion of the privilege's ambit that consistency of protection across client types will be achieved.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"26 1","pages":"157 - 177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221077330","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Legal advice privilege operates in the corporate context subject to a dominant purpose test and an agency-based control mechanism. This mechanism fails to reflect the privilege's rationale and prevents the dominant purpose test from giving corporations the same level of protection that the privilege provides to other client types. Following analysis of approaches in other common law jurisdictions, this article concludes that the optimum control mechanism for English Law is the dominant purpose test unfettered by the agency-based control mechanism and extended to encompass third parties. It is the first significant attempt to consider the merits of the agency-based control mechanism since the operation of the dominant purpose test in this context was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. It rebuts the suggestion by some academics that legal advice privilege should be restricted in the corporate context by asserting that it is by expansion of the privilege's ambit that consistency of protection across client types will be achieved.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法律咨询特权:三河律师事务所的遗产(第5位)以及为所有类型的客户提供一致保护的挑战
法律咨询特权在公司环境下运作,受制于主导目的测试和基于代理的控制机制。这种机制未能反映特权的基本原理,并且阻止了主导目的测试为公司提供与特权为其他客户类型提供的相同级别的保护。本文通过对其他英美法系国家的做法进行分析,认为英国法的最佳控制机制是不受以代理为基础的控制机制约束的主导目的检验,并将其扩展到包括第三方。这是自上诉法院确认在这方面主要目的检验的运作以来,审议以机构为基础的控制机制的优点的第一次重大尝试。它反驳了一些学者的建议,即法律咨询特权应该在公司背景下受到限制,它断言,只有通过扩大特权的范围,才能实现跨客户类型保护的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability The skewing effect of outcome evidence The economic case for conviction multiplicity What matters for assessing insider witnesses? Results of an experimental vignette study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1