Copies of attorney-client communication held by the client are also protected by legal professional privilege.

The position in Malaysia is still unclear as to whether legal professional privilege extends to in-house lawyers, as there have been no Malaysian cases on this point.

The term "advocate" used in the Evidence Act is defined as "a person entitled to practice as an advocate or as an advocate and solicitor under the law in force in any part of Malaysia." A strict reading of this definition suggests legal professional privilege does not extend to in-house lawyers or legal advisers who are salaried employees of the client. On this interpretation, privilege would only apply to advocates and solicitors entitled to practice in Malaysia by virtue of being called to the Malaysian bar and holding a practicing certificate or by obtaining an exemption allowing them to practice in Malaysia on an ad hoc basis. An in-house lawyer cannot hold a practicing certificate and cannot appear in court.

The term "legal professional adviser" used in the Evidence Act is not defined, and until there is clear judicial interpretation as to the legislative intent behind the use of the term, there is no basis to limit the application of the provision to confidential communications between a person and their advocate. Arguably, the test of whether in-house lawyers are sufficiently independent to be treated in the same way as external lawyers may be applied, as it has been in some Commonwealth jurisdictions.

As a matter of prudence, it should however be assumed that the concept of legal professional privilege extends only to communications with externally appointed advocates and solicitors.

As the position regarding whether the concept of legal professional privilege extends to in-house lawyers is unclear, the prudent approach would be to assume that it does not extend to internal communications between in-house lawyers.

Legal professional privilege extends only to Malaysian advocates and solicitors. Foreign lawyers will generally (unless, for example, they have leave of a Malaysian court to practice) not be afforded the protection of privilege.

As nonlegal professionals are not "advocates" for the purposes of the Evidence Act, legal professional privilege will not be afforded to nonlegal professionals who advise on legal issues relating to their field.