Talk:Attorney–client privilege

what about a billing statement to a school distri t for legal fees? is this privileged?


 * Probably depends on local law. I'd consult a local attorney.  Tempshill 00:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

All of the tax issues sounds like an ad for a tax attorney over an accountant. Surely tax-related issues do not form the bulk (if any) of concerns over attorney-client privilege. Rlove 20:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Attorney Client Privilege
If anyone has any insight on my question, it would be greatly appreciated. My husband and I are entering into a legal proceding. We are afraid that he may have some health problems that may interfere with getting his immigration papers completed and that some things on his medical exam may actually prevent him from obtaining his US green card. We would like to discuss these issues with our lawyer but we are afraid he will not keep them confidential. Is anything you discuss with your lawyer in the state of CA regarding immigration protected under the Attorney Client Privilege?

Thanks, Anonymous333 18:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Anonymous333

Department of Human Services
Where as a minor child has been put into a care facility, and the Iowa Department of Human Services notifies the care giver to monitor the child's phone conversations (including with his lawyer), it appears that the child has no rights. Even when the parents and or legal guardians protest, Iowa Department of Human Services can still monitor calls with no notification to the person(s) having the phone conversations. Furthermore, Iowa Department of Human Services will not accept liability of any action nor can be held liable for their imorral acts. Is this true or false?

Redirecting here
Why does the search term 'legal professional privilege' redirect here, which deals with 'attorney-client privilege' under US law? 'Legal professional privilege' is a general term for all common law jurisdictions (which, believe it or not, includes the US.) I have contributed the article on 'legal professional privilege (England & Wales)', but it seems to me that the 'commonwealth' link actually functions as a general description of the concept in all common law jurisdictions. Thus, the primary result page should be what is now the 'commonwealth' page, with the US, English and Australian pages leading off from that.

Otherwise, the matter seems like US chauvenism - which is odd, since English law invented the concept in the first place!

Urbanmyth139 (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes made
I have made the term 'legal professional privilege' redirect to Legal Professional Privilege (Common Law) which is a general treatment of this concepts - which is common to all common law countries, including the US. The US is included (as is the England & Wales, Australia and Canada) in a summarised form in the Common law overview. Please could whoever is best-placed make a better summary (at the moment it is just a cut-and-paste from the this Attorney-client page) in the Legal Professional Privilege (Common Law) article?

Urbanmyth139 (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Attorney Client Privilege
There's a popular house music artist by the name of "Attorney Client Privilege" (yeah, odd name). The group has also recently hit the "Promo Only" dance track listings in March 2008. Should I create a entirely new article named something like "Attorney Client Privilege (artist)"? — ThreeDee912 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of state law in intro section
First and second bullets are, I believe, wrong. If you think they are correct, please add a citation. The third bullet actually isn't about the privilege at all, but rather the lawyer's duty to maintain confidences (which is broader than the privilege in all states, not just California). In any event, they shouldn't be in the introduction. --Sjsilverman (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word "their" with a singular antecedent
In the intro for the article, I would argue that "he or she" is preferable over "their." (See recent edits.)

I agree with what the anonymous user is saying about the fact that a "client" could be an entity other than a man or a woman, in the article.

The word "client" is singular. The use of the word "their" in connection with a singular antecedent ("client") is indeed colloquial in English, and is "proper" in that sense. See, e.g., the definition of "their" in Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 1474, World Publishing Co., Inc. (2nd Coll. Ed. 1978).

However, the term "colloquial" means "designating or of the words, phrases and idioms characteristic of informal speech and writing.." Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 280, World Publishing Co., Inc. (2nd Coll. Ed. 1978) (italics added).

This is not "informal speech," and it is not "informal writing." This is an encyclopedia. The colloquial use of the word "their" in this way in an encyclopedia is clumsy, just as the use of contractions (which are colloquial and acceptable for informal speech) is not as appropriate in formal written materials.

By contrast, the use of "his or her" is not clumsy. Thoughts, anyone? Famspear (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's what I'm talking about:


 * Attorney–client privilege is a US-American legal concept that protects certain communications between a client and their attorney and prevents the attorney from being compelled to testify to those communications in court.

That's colloquial. It sounds like informal speech -- because that's really what it is. People who are fluent in English often speak that way. However, it's clumsy.

In an encyclopedia, I would argue that the more formal approach works better:


 * Attorney–client privilege is a US-American legal concept that protects certain communications between a client and his or her attorney and prevents the attorney from being compelled to testify to those communications in court.

That's not as clumsy, and it's more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't agree. Several formal sources employ the singular they, for instance, the Canadian Parliament. Take Bill C-14 as an example:


 * "1 No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on them, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person who inflicts death on the person who gave consent.


 * 2 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 226:


 * 227 (1) No medical practitioner or nurse practitioner commits culpable homicide if they provide a person with medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241."


 * And that isn't just an isolated incident. Now obviously that's just one example, but the singular they is used far more than he/she by the general population in both speech and writing, to the point that governments have moved to use it in law.


 * They is undeniable more elegant than he or she from a speech perspective just because it's shorter and less bulky to use.


 * Is there still some opposition for its use in academic contexts? Sure, but there's still opposition to calling vegetables healthy instead of healthful. In the end, I think it's best to use what most speakers of English would prefer, even in an academic contexts, which I would suggest is definitely the singular they.


 * --krimin_killr21(talk) 20:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)