You might assume at first glance that the right of the attorney-client and the doctrine of the work product are synonymous and control the same exact scope of knowledge, but that is not the case. The right of an attorney-client applies to a legal privilege that works to keep sensitive interactions private between an attorney and his or her client while the doctrine of the work product says that an adverse party does not necessarily discover or force a disc.
Keep the following few features in mind to get a clear grasp of the legal concepts:
A core feature of any attorney-client partnership is contact. There must be some form of contact between the solicitor and the defendant in order for the attorney-client privilege to be used. With that said, the operating product doctrine requires no correspondence. If such records were made in expectation of lawsuits, memorandums and other notes would most likely be covered.
For any of these legal principles to be in place, you would believe the lawsuits must be begun. The situation is not always that. Regardless of if you have brought a complaint against a defendant or whether anyone has filed a lawsuit against you, the attorney-client protection covers legal advice. The key term is “in anticipation of litigation” in respect to the litigation provision and the work product doctrine. The work product doctrine covers papers, reports, and other items that were produced in anticipation of litigation, but not materials that were not created for such a purpose.
Depending on the court, the length of the attorney-client right and the work result doctrine which vary. The right of the attorney-client typically continues forever; however, the doctrine of the work product can be limited to the case and may be ended until the litigation ends.
There are some fundamental parallels between the attorney-client right and the work product doctrine, but it is important to consider some of the basic distinctions between the two legal principles. While the aforementioned list does not include all the gaps between the rights of the attorney-client and the doctrine of the job object, it gives an insight into some of the underlying distinctions.