Privilege/without prejudice

This overview is a guide and introduction to our suite of documents on privilege and takes the reader through the main principles.

Dealing with aspects of privilege can be one of the most challenging issues a practitioner faces before and during litigation proceedings and, more particularly, during a disclosure exercise. The term ‘legal professional privilege’ comprises the two main strands of legal advice privilege and litigation privilege; and there are related concepts of common interest privilege; joint (or joint interest) privilege and without prejudice privilege to consider too.

Privilege—general principles

In English law, legal professional privilege is a fundamental right allowing a party, or its successors in title, to withhold from production certain documents. For an introduction to the general principles of legal professional privilege in civil proceedings, see Practice Note: Privilege—general principles.

Privilege can be asserted over documents which fall into these categories:

  1. legal professional privilege (LPP), split between:

    1. legal advice privilege, see Practice Note: Legal professional privilege in civil proceedings—Legal advice privilege

    2. litigation privilege, see Practice Note: Legal professional privilege in civil proceedings—Litigation privilege

  2. other forms

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

The Law Society’s AI strategy and response to government

The Law Society has responded to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology’s call for evidence on the AI Growth Lab, stressing the need for a proportionate regulatory approach that supports innovation while maintaining professional standards. In a press release dated 6 January 2026, the sector’s widespread willingness to embrace lawtech was highlighted, with two-thirds of lawyers said to ‘already use AI tools in their work’, alongside an ongoing uncertainty as to the risks and ‘exact requirements for data security, oversight and liability’. Separately, The Law Society’s ‘Introduction to lawtech’ guide published on 29 December 2025 observed that client demand for ‘greater efficiency, transparency and cost control, especially in corporate legal services’ has been a key driver for AI usage, with larger firms leading adoption and medium-sized firms catching up. The Law Society says it will continue to work with the government to ensure AI benefits both firms and clients, with its strategy focused on the following three key outcomes: i) innovation in legal service delivery; ii) an effective AI regulatory landscape, influenced by the legal sector; and iii) integrity through responsible AI use, supporting the rule of law and access to justice. Links to consultation responses and downloadable submissions on a range of AI-related issues, including data processing, ransomware resilience and the use of AI outputs in criminal proceedings (among others), are included on The Law Society’s ‘AI and lawtech: government policy and regulation’ page (updated on 18 December 2025), which also invites members to share their views and identify any gaps in support or guidance.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents