This House believes attorney-client privilege should be abolished

If communications between an attorney and their client are confidential, then it allows for lies to be put forward to the court in order to defend someone who is guilty. In the case of a criminal matter, it could mean that even though a defendant has stated they are guilty to their attorney, they will not be found to be guilty. Every attorney wants to win their case, and if they are likely to conceal the confession of their client if it means their client will be released. As the communication is confidential, such confession will not be informed to the court and the attorney would not be exposed for their lies. The confidential nature of the communications between attorney and client open the possibility for a system of justice based upon lies. This is not just and so the Attorney-Client Privilege should be abolished.

It is a breach of a fundamental rule of an attorney's professional conduct rules to lie to the courts. In England and Wales the risk of Attorney's lying has been catered for by the Rule 11.01 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct. This rule makes it a serious breach of the conduct rules to lie to or knowingly deceive the courts; as witness statements and police interviews are presented in courts as evidence these are also included.[1] This means that a solicitor is not allowed to put forward or allow to be put forward any information to be adduced to the court which is incorrect. The consequences for a solicitor are high – they are liable to have their professional license revoked. Given the high consequences, a solicitor would not be willing to risk it and will therefore not be willing to lie for their client to the court.

[1] Rule 11: Litigation and advocacy, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007, http://www.sra.org.uk/rule11/ accessed 18/5/11

A system of just law is not based on opinions or ideologies. It is about finding evidence and using that evidence to prove or disprove either to 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal cases or 'on the balance of probabilities' for civil and commercial matters. The burden is on the importance of the evidence. It does not make sense for a legal system to on one hand place so much emphasis on evidence and lock away documents which will contain a vast array of empirical evidence with the other. Instead, attorney-client privilege should be abolished and all evidence should be in justices domain in order to ensure that the law achieves a just result.

If it were the case that legal advice were not privileged people would not tell their attorneys the full truth and therefore such evidence would not exist anyway. The removal of Attorney-Client Privilege would only remove such evidence from the forum. This would lead to a further distorted system whereby Attorneys are arguing upon the false representations made to them by their clients. This provides even less evidence of truth than a system which includes Attorney-Client Privilege.

With the attorney-client privilege in place, there is an excessive burden on the solicitor to cope with any information their client may give to them on a confidential basis. This means they have to deal with the information alone. This is an excessive moral burden for any individual to have and should not be justified on the basis that a solicitor is there to advance the interests of their client. It should not be the solicitors role to deal with moral conflicts alone.

The privilege that subsists between solicitors and their clients is well documented. Therefore, when people go about becoming solicitors they go into it knowing the potential moral pitfalls. Having entered the career they accept the moral burden and should seek to comply with the Solicitors Code of Conduct. In addition, the moral burden is mitigated by those such rules. It is stated that in exceptional circumstances, situations involving children or the potential serious bodily harm on any individual the duty of confidentiality can be departed from.

One of the principles behind allowing communications between a solicitor and their client to be privileged is that a solicitor is independent of their client and so will not breach laws themselves in order to attain their clients objectives. However, after the recession of 2008 and the Legal Services Act 2007 the position of in house lawyer is more prevalent[1]. In house lawyers are not financially independent. They are in fact employees of their 'client'. This eradicates the principle behind client-attorney privilege and therefore the privilege itself is now irrelevant and should be eradicated.

[1] In-house counsel on the rise, New Law Journal, 28 April 2010, http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/house-counsel-rise accessed 18/05/11

This does not mean that client-attorney privilege should be done away with altogether. When it comes to European law and their investigations under the Treaty of Lisbon for uncompetitive practices, they do not count in house lawyer communications as privileged[1]

[1] Akzo Nobel Chemicals Limited C-550/07 http://international.lawsociety.org.uk/files/Summary%20of%20Akzo%20Nobel%20Hearing%209%20February%202010.pdf accessed 18/05/11

Most obviously it seems unnecessary for there to be attorney client privilege when the defendant’s interests cannot be adversely affected. For example when the confidential information just does not incriminate the client himself but it might clear somebody else, or when the client is dead. Few people will be discouraged from being candid with their lawyers if there is merely the possibility that the communications may be disclosed after their death.

In addition there are situations where the client’s interest may indeed be hurt but where this should be outweighed by some other very important public interest. In other words perhaps there should be ‘necessity’ or ‘public interest’ or ‘in the interests of justice’ balancing exceptions to the privilege. This would be the case when public safety is at risk, for example if the client holds some very vital information but is not willing to disclose it to anyone other than his lawyer. In such cases the courts should weigh up and balance the client’s interests against society’s and make the decision accordingly rather than rigidly sticking to attorney-client privilege.

It is very unusual to have a case where it would be certain that disclosure would in no way affect the client. Clients want confidentiality for a wide variety of reasons, not only for reasons connected to personal criminal liability. Even if these confidences are not any sort of admission of criminal wrongdoing, they may nonetheless be matters that the client, for one reason or another, would not wish divulged. Abolishing the privilege not only violates a person’s right to privacy, but a person who knows that his communications may be later revealed (even after his death, or even with ‘use immunity’) may well decide that it is better not to go to a lawyer in the first place – in other words, leading to an access to justice problem. This becomes even more of a problem if the privilege may be overridden when it is in the public interest as the client is not going to know when this may be considered to be the case. Better to keep the information to him/herself rather than opening the possibility that it may be used ‘in the public interest’

If communications between an attorney and their client are confidential, then it allows for lies to be put forward to the court in order to defend someone who is guilty. In the case of a criminal matter, it could mean that even though a defendant has stated they are guilty to their attorney, they will not be found to be guilty. Every attorney wants to win their case, and if they are likely to conceal the confession of their client if it means their client will be released. As the communication is confidential, such confession will not be informed to the court and the attorney would not be exposed for their lies. The confidential nature of the communications between attorney and client open the possibility for a system of justice based upon lies. This is not just and so the Attorney-Client Privilege should be abolished.

It is a breach of a fundamental rule of an attorney's professional conduct rules to lie to the courts. In England and Wales the risk of Attorney's lying has been catered for by the Rule 11.01 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct. This rule makes it a serious breach of the conduct rules to lie to or knowingly deceive the courts; as witness statements and police interviews are presented in courts as evidence these are also included.[1] This means that a solicitor is not allowed to put forward or allow to be put forward any information to be adduced to the court which is incorrect. The consequences for a solicitor are high – they are liable to have their professional license revoked. Given the high consequences, a solicitor would not be willing to risk it and will therefore not be willing to lie for their client to the court.

[1] Rule 11: Litigation and advocacy, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007, http://www.sra.org.uk/rule11/ accessed 18/5/11

A system of just law is not based on opinions or ideologies. It is about finding evidence and using that evidence to prove or disprove either to 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal cases or 'on the balance of probabilities' for civil and commercial matters. The burden is on the importance of the evidence. It does not make sense for a legal system to on one hand place so much emphasis on evidence and lock away documents which will contain a vast array of empirical evidence with the other. Instead, attorney-client privilege should be abolished and all evidence should be in justices domain in order to ensure that the law achieves a just result.

If it were the case that legal advice were not privileged people would not tell their attorneys the full truth and therefore such evidence would not exist anyway. The removal of Attorney-Client Privilege would only remove such evidence from the forum. This would lead to a further distorted system whereby Attorneys are arguing upon the false representations made to them by their clients. This provides even less evidence of truth than a system which includes Attorney-Client Privilege.

With the attorney-client privilege in place, there is an excessive burden on the solicitor to cope with any information their client may give to them on a confidential basis. This means they have to deal with the information alone. This is an excessive moral burden for any individual to have and should not be justified on the basis that a solicitor is there to advance the interests of their client. It should not be the solicitors role to deal with moral conflicts alone.

The privilege that subsists between solicitors and their clients is well documented. Therefore, when people go about becoming solicitors they go into it knowing the potential moral pitfalls. Having entered the career they accept the moral burden and should seek to comply with the Solicitors Code of Conduct. In addition, the moral burden is mitigated by those such rules. It is stated that in exceptional circumstances, situations involving children or the potential serious bodily harm on any individual the duty of confidentiality can be departed from.

One of the principles behind allowing communications between a solicitor and their client to be privileged is that a solicitor is independent of their client and so will not breach laws themselves in order to attain their clients objectives. However, after the recession of 2008 and the Legal Services Act 2007 the position of in house lawyer is more prevalent[1]. In house lawyers are not financially independent. They are in fact employees of their 'client'. This eradicates the principle behind client-attorney privilege and therefore the privilege itself is now irrelevant and should be eradicated.

[1] In-house counsel on the rise, New Law Journal, 28 April 2010, http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/house-counsel-rise accessed 18/05/11

This does not mean that client-attorney privilege should be done away with altogether. When it comes to European law and their investigations under the Treaty of Lisbon for uncompetitive practices, they do not count in house lawyer communications as privileged[1]

[1] Akzo Nobel Chemicals Limited C-550/07 http://international.lawsociety.org.uk/files/Summary%20of%20Akzo%20Nobel%20Hearing%209%20February%202010.pdf accessed 18/05/11

Most obviously it seems unnecessary for there to be attorney client privilege when the defendant’s interests cannot be adversely affected. For example when the confidential information just does not incriminate the client himself but it might clear somebody else, or when the client is dead. Few people will be discouraged from being candid with their lawyers if there is merely the possibility that the communications may be disclosed after their death.

In addition there are situations where the client’s interest may indeed be hurt but where this should be outweighed by some other very important public interest. In other words perhaps there should be ‘necessity’ or ‘public interest’ or ‘in the interests of justice’ balancing exceptions to the privilege. This would be the case when public safety is at risk, for example if the client holds some very vital information but is not willing to disclose it to anyone other than his lawyer. In such cases the courts should weigh up and balance the client’s interests against society’s and make the decision accordingly rather than rigidly sticking to attorney-client privilege.

It is very unusual to have a case where it would be certain that disclosure would in no way affect the client. Clients want confidentiality for a wide variety of reasons, not only for reasons connected to personal criminal liability. Even if these confidences are not any sort of admission of criminal wrongdoing, they may nonetheless be matters that the client, for one reason or another, would not wish divulged. Abolishing the privilege not only violates a person’s right to privacy, but a person who knows that his communications may be later revealed (even after his death, or even with ‘use immunity’) may well decide that it is better not to go to a lawyer in the first place – in other words, leading to an access to justice problem. This becomes even more of a problem if the privilege may be overridden when it is in the public interest as the client is not going to know when this may be considered to be the case. Better to keep the information to him/herself rather than opening the possibility that it may be used ‘in the public interest’

In criminal, civil or commercial matters, it is important that everyone has equal access to the law. This ensures a fair and just system. In order to facilitate this principle, even those in the wrong need to know that what they say to their legal representative will not be used against them at a later date. It is this principle that provides equality in the court room and therefore the principle of client attorney privilege needs to be maintained.

Surely the best way to ensure justice is to let the truth be known. By allowing the communication between an attorney and their client to be privileged, the system is catering for a system of arbitrary loopholes and cleverly worded arguments. These are the tools that a solicitor/ attorney would have in order to protect the interests of their client in the face of information they may not wish to divulge to the opponent. This only caters for an adversarial system whereby two parties oppose each other and they each have lawyers to assist them. Surely a better system would be one that encouraged open communication of the truth in order for the court to establish the most just outcome.

An attorney's main duty is owed to their client. Under Rule 1.04 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct a solicitor “must act in the best interests of each client”.[1] It is part of the adversarial system that we have that two opposing parties in litigation argue for their best interests. The whole working of the adversarial system of justice is that each party knows the facts but argues the facts that most support their case. To take away client-attorney privilege is to undermine this way of achieving justice.

[1]  Rule 1: Core duties, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007, http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct/rule1.page accessed 18/05/11

All this shows is that our 'adversarial system' is flawed. Rather than each party trying to pull the wool over the courts eyes and only see their version of the facts surely the system of justice would operate better if each attorney had the duty to the court in finding the truth. Perhaps it is for this reason that mediation is often seen as the better way to solve disputes. In mediation, the parties are each trying to reach an out of court settlement that balances both of their needs. Justice would be achieved more easily in this mediation setting if the client-attorney privilege did not apply. Solicitors then would truly be looking to advance justice, not the clients best interests. Justice is supposed to be unbiased in this regard.

In exceptional circumstances, solicitors are told that they may depart from the rule of confidentiality contained in Rule 4 of the Solicitors' Code of conduct. Note 9 states that there are some regulatory bodies that are entitled to be informed of apparently confidential client communications.[1] In cases of suspected money laundering, solicitors have a duty under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007[2] to inform relevant bodies of any suspected money laundering or any handling of the proceeds of crime. This means that there is flexibility in the rule of client confidentiality and client-attorney privilege which allows for justice to take its course in serious circumstances.

[1] Rule 4: Confidentiality and disclosure, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007, http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct/rule4.page accessed 18/05/11

[2] The Money Laundering Regulations 2007, legislation.gov.uk, No2157, 2007, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2157/contents/made

The circumstances under which Note 9 allows such a break in the rule of client-attorney privilege is for the HM Revenue and other bodies that act for the benefit of the Government. It is rather archaic that a principle such as that of attorney-client privilege is loosened only for bodies that act for the benefit of the Government. This does not show that attorney-Client privilege is necessary but that it is not. If the Government is willing to do away with it for their monetary benefit, why can we not do away with it in the interest of justice for society? There should be a system that encourages the adversarial system, and attorney/client privilege but yet allows a variety of circumstances to override this principle, such as public interest and public security. These principles are often used to justify potential Human Rights breaches, so we should also be able to use them to justify the breach of attorney/client privilege.