What is solicitor-client privilege and what is litigation privilege?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from R. v Christhurajah, 2016 BCSC 2393 (CanLII):

In Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2006 SCC 39, Fish J. explained the distinction between solicitor‑client privilege and litigation privilege at paras. 26-28 and 34: 26 Much has been said in these cases, and others, regarding the origin and rationale of the solicitor-client privilege. The solicitor-client privilege has been firmly entrenched for centuries. It recognizes that the justice system depends for its vitality on full, free and frank communication between those who need legal advice and those who are best able to provide it. Society has entrusted to lawyers the task of advancing their clients’ cases with the skill and expertise available only to those who are trained in the law. They alone can discharge these duties effectively, but only if those who depend on them for counsel may consult with them in confidence. The resulting confidential relationship between solicitor and client is a necessary and essential condition of the effective administration of justice. 27 Litigation privilege, on the other hand, is not directed at, still less, restricted to, communications between solicitor and client. It contemplates, as well, communications between a solicitor and third parties or, in the case of an unrepresented litigant, between the litigant and third parties. Its object is to ensure the efficacy of the adversarial process and not to promote the solicitor-client relationship. And to achieve this purpose, parties to litigation, represented or not, must be left to prepare their contending positions in private, without adversarial interference and without fear of premature disclosure. 28 R. J. Sharpe (now Sharpe J.A.) has explained particularly well the differences between litigation privilege and solicitor-client privilege: It is crucially important to distinguish litigation privilege from solicitor-client privilege. There are, I suggest, at least three important differences between the two. First, solicitor-client privilege applies only to confidential communications between the client and his solicitor. Litigation privilege, on the other hand, applies to communications of a non-confidential nature between the solicitor and third parties and even includes material of a non-communicative nature. Secondly, solicitor-client privilege exists any time a client seeks legal advice from his solicitor whether or not litigation is involved. Litigation privilege, on the other hand, applies only in the context of litigation itself. Thirdly, and most important, the rationale for solicitor-client privilege is very different from that which underlies litigation privilege. This difference merits close attention. The interest which underlies the protection accorded communications between a client and a solicitor from disclosure is the interest of all citizens to have full and ready access to legal advice. If an individual cannot confide in a solicitor knowing that what is said will not be revealed, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for that individual to obtain proper candid legal advice. Litigation privilege, on the other hand, is geared directly to the process of litigation. Its purpose is not explained adequately by the protection afforded lawyer-client communications deemed necessary to allow clients to obtain legal advice, the interest protected by solicitor-client privilege. Its purpose is more particularly related to the needs of the adversarial trial process. Litigation privilege is based upon the need for a protected area to facilitate investigation and preparation of a case for trial by the adversarial advocate. In other words, litigation privilege aims to facilitate a process (namely, the adversary process), while solicitor-client privilege aims to protect a relationship (namely, the confidential relationship between a lawyer and a client). (“Claiming Privilege in the Discovery Process”, in Special Lectures of the Law Society of Upper Canada (1984), 163, at pp. 164-65) . . . 34 The purpose of the litigation privilege, I repeat, is to create a "zone of privacy" in relation to pending or apprehended litigation. Once the litigation has ended, the privilege to which it gave rise has lost its specific and concrete purpose — and therefore its justification. But to borrow a phrase, the litigation is not over until it is over: It cannot be said to have "terminated", in any meaningful sense of that term, where litigants or related parties remain locked in what is essentially the same legal combat.

Other Questions


What is litigation privilege and what is the argument that litigation privilege means? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is litigation privilege and what is the effect of litigation privilege on court-appointed and joint appointed experts? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is there an implied waiver of privilege where a party waives privilege but takes a position in relation to privileged materials that is inconsistent with maintaining privilege? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does solicitor-client privilege apply to litigation privilege? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can litigation privilege be claimed over copies of litigation documents? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the impact of Rule 7-5(2) of the Canadian Rules of Civil Procedure on a motion to dismiss an application for litigation privilege? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is there any case law in which privilege has been abused in the context of privilege at bar? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the fact that litigation is a reasonable prospect after a casualty make a report privileged? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does litigation privilege apply to communications between lawyers and third parties? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is litigation privilege applicable to Crown counsel in the course of the prosecution? (British Columbia, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.