Should legal professional privilege be absolute: a comparative appraisal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Legal Professional privilege, a single integral (whose sub-heads are legal advice privilege and litigation privilege) is not a mere procedural incident of the forensic but a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests. It has been described as a fundamental human right of any person to obtain skilled advice by the law. The privilege exists to ensure that there is a full and frank disclosure between lawyers and their clients which helps to promote broader public interest in the observance of law and administration of justice. In England and Australia, the courts have recently held that the privilege is absolute subject only to the narrowly defined exception of cases where the client is seeking legal advice in order to enable himself to better commits a fraud of crime. The privilege is an enduring privilege, unless the client waives it expressly or impliedly. the absolutist view of the privilege has not been accepted in Canada. The position in India, Malaysia and Singapore courts have restrictively interpreted their codes, instating that legal professional privilege can only be waived by the client, expressly and in writing. this article seeks to briefly discuss the nature of both aspects of legal professional privilege, whether it should be absolute and can be waived only expressly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".