How has work product been treated in the context of attorney-client privilege?

Thus, under California law in the early 1950's, materials now considered work product were subsumed under the attorney-client privilege and were, therefore, (1) absolutely privileged against the client's adversary (no showing of good cause or necessity could compel production); but (2) were discoverable upon client consent. The attorney-client privilege is the client's, not the attorney's, and if it results in protecting the attorney "it does so only accidentally as a result of the assertion of the client's right." (Abbott v. Superior Court (1947) 78 Cal.App.2d 19, 21, 177 P.2d 317.) Accordingly, if such materials could be disclosed to adversaries upon client consent, it would make no sense to suggest the client himself could be prohibited from viewing the same writings.