早在伊丽莎白女王一世时代，保护律师与其当事人之间的通信之秘密性对于促使当事人更积极地与其律师交流他们的事务、培养公众对整个法律行业的信心并进而鼓励公众行使其获得律师的权利就发挥了重要作用。在普通法国家，尽管它最初是律师为保护其职业荣誉而持有的一项权利，但现在已成为当事人可以用以保护其利益的一种重要手段。特别是在美国，它被视为保护个人获得律师权利的重要工具。虽然有各种各样的批评者，但似乎废除这一特权的主张都没有能够获得成功。这项特权在中国的引入相对较晚。就目前来说，这项特权受两项立法所规制，并为当事人提供充分的保护。尽管有些人误以为该特权不属于当事人，但中国的律师-当事人特权可以根据当事人的意愿行使和取消。《中华人民共和国律师法》禁止在违背当事人或信息所属第三方意愿的情况下披露代理过程中获悉的信息；这是当事人的权利，也是律师的义务。基于此，当事人可以要求其律师保护其信息。中国的《刑事诉讼法》也对这一特权做出了规定，赋予律师在刑事审判中拒绝就特权涉及事项作证的权利。这有助于当事人在法庭内外有效地保护其特权信息。与美国的律师-当事人特权相比，该特权的持有者是相同的：当事人。就保护范围而言，根据定义，中国的保护范围可以说更广。尽管如此，因为在法律条文中没有明确提到权利持有人，可以说，这种特权的基本目的，即鼓励交流，没有得到充分的实现。换句话说，如果这种“权利属于律师而不是委托人”的误解继续发生，设置这种特权的一个重要目的就会受到损害。因此，对现行法律进行调整是有益的，而实现这种改进的方式可以是通过证据法的立法，将其中一部分专门用于规定律师-当事人特权。对特权适用范围的一些修改也可有利于该制度的完善，从而既促进个人对辩护权的积极行使，又不会给公众寻求真相带来不应有的负担。

Dating back as early as the era of Queen Elizabeth I, protection of confidential communications between an attorney and his client has played an important role in motivating clients to communicate their concerns more actively to their legal representatives and in cultivating confidence that the legal profession as a whole gives to the general public, thereby encouraging the public to exercise their right to counsel. In common law jurisdictions, despite its beginning as a right held by the attorney to protect his professional honour, it has now become an important device on which clients can rely to protect their interests, that belongs to the client. In the U.S. in particular, it is viewed as an essential tool that protects an individual’s right to counsel. There also has been several varieties of critics, but none seem to have successfully argued for abolishment of this privilege. The introduction of this privilege in the People’s Republic of China has been relatively recent. In its current form, the privilege is enabled by two separate pieces of legislation and provides sufficient protection to clients. The Chinese attorney-client privilege can be exercised and lifted in accordance with the wishes of the client, despite the misunderstanding by some that the privilege does not belong to the client. Disclosing information learnt during representation against the wishes of one’s client or a third party to whom the information belongs is prohibited by the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Lawyers, and this comes as a right to the client and a duty to the lawyer. Based on this, the client can demand from his attorney safeguarding of his information. The Criminal Procedure Law of China also has a provision on the privilege, giving attorneys the right to refuse to testify on privileged matters in a criminal trial. This helps the client effectively protect his privileged information both inside and outside the court. In comparison with the attorney-client privilege in the United States, the holder of the privilege is the same: the client. The scope of protection, under the definition, is arguably broader in China. Despite this, because in the text of the law the holder of the right is not clearly mentioned, it can be argued that the rationale of the privilege, encouragement of communication, is not fully served. In other words, if the misunderstanding that this right belongs to the attorney, not the client, continues to occur, one of the more important purposes of this privilege suffers. This is the reason why adjustments to the current law can be beneficial, and the way in which such improvement can be achieved is possibly through legislation of a compiled law of evidence, with a part dedicated to the attorney-client privilege. Some additional modifications as to the scope of the privilege can also potentially benefit the system, resulting in more vigorous exercise of an individual’s right to counsel without placing undue burden on the public’s search for truth.