The fundamental legal principles governing legal professional privilege remain the same across civil, criminal, regulatory and investigatory contexts. The requirements for legal advice and litigation privilege apply equally in all situations.

Yes, provided they meet the necessary requirements. For such documents to be privileged, their creation must satisfy the dominant purpose test — that is, they must have been created for the company (the client) to obtain legal advice or to prepare for contemplated litigation (Ibex RSA Holdco Ltd and Another v. Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd and Others). Notes from employee interviews conducted by lawyers to gather facts for legal advice are privileged, so long as the interview is not a general fact-finding exercise for business purposes. Documents produced by lawyers during the investigation, such as chronologies and draft reports, are generally protected as they reflect the lawyer's strategy.

Following the Ibex decision, internal investigations must be carefully structured to ensure that the dominant purpose is legal advice or litigation preparation, not business compliance. It is best practice for lawyers conducting employee interviews to clarify that they represent the company, the interview is for providing legal advice to the company, the communication is privileged, and the privilege belongs to the company.