Lawyer-client communications that are covered by legal advice privilege remain so regardless of whether they are held by the lawyer or the client. Copies of privileged documents are also privileged.

Yes. Under English law, in-house lawyers are treated in the same way as external lawyers for determining privilege. Insofar as they are giving legal advice, their communications will be privileged. However, if their communications relate to purely business or administration (i.e., they are corresponding as a "man of business") and "do not contain advice as to what should prudently and sensibly done in a relevant legal context,"^[1] they will not attract privilege. As a practical matter, it is wise for in-house lawyers to separate communications which concern business or administration from communications which are providing legal advice.

However, under EU law, privilege only covers written communications exchanged between a client and an independent lawyer (i.e., external counsel) who is entitled to practice in an EEA Member State.

[1] Paragraph 13, Z v. Z & Ors [2016] EWHC 3349 (Fam).

Yes. Internal communications between in-house lawyers are privileged, provided the communications are for the dominant purpose of the provision of legal advice to the internal client. Communications with lawyers that relate to business or administration with no relevant legal context will not be privileged.

Yes, as long as the lawyer is acting in their professional capacity or function as a lawyer, in connection with the provision of legal advice. The English court will not examine a foreign lawyer's qualification or regulated status by reference to their domestic laws. Accordingly, under English law, foreign in-house lawyers' communications can also attract privilege, so long as they are providing advice in their capacity or function as a lawyer and the other requirements of legal advice or litigation privilege are met (PJSC Tatneft v. Bogolyubov and others [2020] EWHC 2437 (Comm)).

Legal advice privilege does not extend beyond qualified lawyers to advice given by nonlawyers. The Supreme Court decision of R (on the application of Prudential Plc and another) v. Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Anor confirmed this. The Supreme Court's judgment confirmed the historic common law position that legal advice privilege does not extend to advice given by accountants, tax advisers, economists, construction claims consultants or other professionals, even where this advice is necessary for a client to understand their legal rights and obligations. The Supreme Court's rationale for maintaining this rule was that to extend legal advice privilege to nonlawyers "would detract from the certainty and clarity which presently exist." Clients therefore continue to face difficulties when it comes to instructing nonlawyer third parties, as information shared with them may later be disclosable in a litigation or regulatory context, unless they are covered by litigation privilege. Litigation privilege may apply to other nonlegal professionals as it can cover communications with third parties, such as a client's communication with an expert.