Attorney-client privilege (which comes from a variety of sources, depending on the state and court) and work product doctrine (which rests on court rules in most jurisdictions) can both shield communications from discovery. But lawyers should recognize that they serve very different societal interests — a distinction reflected in their applications.
In Jackson v. Progressive Advanced Insurance Co., No. 1:24-CV-1822, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256742, at *10 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2025), the court quoted a nearly 35-year-old influential case explaining that the attorney-client privilege “promotes the attorney-client relationship” while the work product doctrine “promotes the adversary system,” citing Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1427-28 (3d Cir. 1991). The latter recognition led the Supreme Court to describe the work product doctrine as “intensely practical …, grounded in the realities of litigation in our adversary system.” Id. (citing United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238-39 (1975)).
Wise lawyers always keep this distinction in mind when researching, applying and extrapolating from these two distinct protective doctrines.