A copy held by the client is also fully protected. The privilege attaches to the communication itself and belongs to the client, not the lawyer, so its protected status is not dependent on its location.

Yes, in-house lawyers are treated the same as external lawyers, and the privilege extends to their internal communications. The legal foundation for this rests on principles established in cases like Mohamed v. President of South Africa and Others, which confirmed that legal professional privilege applies to salaried in-house legal advisers. However, this protection is subject to strict requirements. The in-house lawyer must be acting in their professional capacity as a legal adviser, not in a commercial or executive role. Furthermore, the communication must be made in confidence for the dominant purpose of seeking or providing legal advice to the employer, which is the client. When these conditions are met, confidential communications between two or more in-house lawyers collaborating on legal advice for their employer are protected.

Legal professional privilege extends to interpreters, articled clerks, secretaries and other employees of a law firm (as established in S v. Mushimba and Others). Legal privilege also applies to internal communications, whether with internal stakeholders or external legal counsel, provided such communications are made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice or in anticipation of litigation, and are legal rather than commercial in nature.

Yes. While there is no direct case law, South African law, consistent with its common law focus, recognizes privilege for communications with foreign lawyers. This is provided the communication meets the standard requirements of being made in a professional capacity, in confidence and for the purpose of legal advice or litigation.

No. Legal professional privilege in South Africa is strictly confined to the relationship between a client and a professional legal adviser (Trust Sentrum (Kaapstad) (Edms) Bpk v. Zevenburg). It has been explicitly held that privilege does not extend to accountants, even when advising on tax law (Jeeva v. Receiver of Revenue, Port Elizabeth).