Talk:Solicitor-client privilege

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Separate from Attorney-client

There are several compelling reasons to keep this article separate from Attorney-client privilege. Admittedly, principles have the same origin and they are very similar. Nevertheless, each country does have a different take on it. Typically, most commonwealth countries don't diverge much from each other. The US, however, often has its own unique take on many legal principles. I'm not too knowledgable about attorney-client privilege to say whether that is the case but I think there is a good possibility, and if so, we should be open to those differences. The simplest reason why this should be different is because commonwealth countries don't have attorneys. They have solicitors. So for the same reason we don't merge solicitor into attorney, or vice-versa, we shouldn't merge solicitor-client privilege with attorney-client privilege. I see no clear advantage to the use of the word "attorney" in the title for an article that is about solicitors. It will only have an effect of alienating contributors with its unecessary US-centric title. --PullUpYourSocks 03:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solicitor-Client Privilege over Defamation Suit

1. Under this privilege, should a communication (writen) to the solicitor from the client be protected against Defamation suit raised by the Solicitor to the client? The communication did not contain any wordings that are defamatory "on the face".

2. Will this privilege apply to a communication from the Client to Bar Council on complaint to a solicitor? Thereby, when such a complaint (with allegation of defamation) passed from Bar Council to the Solicitor, the attachment (=that communication) remains under a privilege from ligitation?