The Advocate's Code of Ethics provides as follows:

• All materials located in the advocate's files are covered by attorney-client privilege.
• All messages, communications, notes and documents concerning the case and received from the client or other people, regardless of where they are located, are also covered by attorney-client privilege.

Under the Attorney-at-law's Code of Ethics, privilege covers all documents created by the attorney-at-law as well as correspondence between the attorney-at-law and the client and persons involved in handling the case — created for purposes related to providing legal assistance.

None of the codes states whether the copies held by the client are also protected. Currently, Poland has not developed solutions that allow to refuse to disclose a document on the grounds that it was produced by lawyers while providing legal assistance or was produced in connection with or for the purpose of litigation (similar to the common law concept of attorney work product).

In principle, Polish law does not make any distinction as to the standard of legal privilege applicable to in-house and external lawyers (provided that they hold the title of an advocate or an attorney-at-law; in-house lawyers who do not hold either of those titles cannot rely on attorney-client privilege). Notwithstanding the above, there are views in the case law suggesting that the standard of protection is lower in the case of attorneys-at-law, especially if they work as in-house lawyers under an employment contract. In particular, the Constitutional Tribunal stated in its judgment of 22 November 2004 (case No. SK 64/03) that, since attorneys-at-law were traditionally employed by the companies they advised, they did not handle information requiring as much protection as information pertaining to criminal or family cases handled by advocates. However, the said judgment was rendered before attorneys-at-law were allowed to handle family cases and criminal cases. Currently, the view that legal privilege should be limited with regard to attorneys-at-law serving as in-house lawyers is strongly criticized by the doctrine.

Currently, there are no regulations or case law specifically regarding the protection of internal communication between in-house lawyers. Functionally, the internal communications between in-house lawyers should be privileged to ensure the protection is effective. However, as described above, the privilege applicable to in-house lawyers may be considered limited in some circumstances.

Foreign lawyers, once enrolled on one of the lists of foreign lawyers as required by the Act of 5 July 2002 on the provision of legal assistance by foreign lawyers in the Republic of Poland, are subject to the statutory obligation of confidentiality and can rely on attorney-client privilege to the same extent as Polish lawyers.

There are specific provisions that regulate this matter. For example, under the Act of 5 July 1996 on the provision of tax advice, tax consultants are obliged not to disclose any information or facts gathered in the course of providing professional legal advice. This obligation of confidentiality cannot be limited in time, and, as a rule, tax consultants cannot be exempted from the obligation of confidentiality as to facts that they learned in the course of providing professional legal advice or leading a case. Persons employed by tax consultants are also subject to this obligation insofar as they carry out professional duties.

Similar rules apply to patent attorneys. Under the Act of 11 April 2001 on patent attorneys, a patent attorney is obliged to keep all information obtained in connection with performing their professional duties confidential. A patent attorney cannot be released from the obligation of professional secrecy with respect to facts learned while providing assistance in matters of industrial property.

The above-described general rules may be limited in specific circumstances. For instance, tax consultant-client privilege and patent attorney-client privilege are limited by the Act of 16 November 2000 on the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing (described in section 2) or by the precise rules on tax schemes provided in Tax Ordinance Act of 29 August 1997. Another example concerns the possibility of questioning a tax consultant as a witness in criminal, civil or administrative proceedings. As a rule, a tax consultant may not be questioned as a witness with regard to information protected by the tax consultant-client privilege. This principle is subject to limitations set out in specific acts. Analogical rules are set out for patent attorneys and the protection of their privilege.

Restructuring advisers and insolvency practitioners are likewise bound by the duty of professional confidentiality. However, this obligation arises primarily from the nature of their profession and from codes of ethics, rather than directly from statutory law, as is the case with attorneys-at-law, advocates, tax consultants and patent attorneys. Similarly to other legal professionals, restructuring advisers and insolvency practitioners may not be questioned as witnesses with regard to information protected by privilege. In specific situations, the court may waive the obligation of privilege.