Chile recognizes comprehensive protection for legal communications and documents through two interrelated institutions: attorney-client privilege (secreto profesional) and the duty of confidentiality (deber de confidencialidad). As established by the Chilean Supreme Court, both have been recognized by law in articles 231 and 247 of the Criminal Code and are part of the constitutional right to due process and the right to non-violation of private communications (Supreme Court ruling dated 28 November 2012, Case No. 2423-2012). Both institutions operate at different levels and have various applications in Chilean law.

Attorney-client privilege is a legal obligation that requires a lawyer not to reveal the client's confidential information that has been communicated to the lawyer to fulfill their legal services. Attorney-client privilege mainly operates as a procedural immunity that enables lawyers to refuse to disclose information obtained in their professional capacity when required by state authorities. This privilege is explicitly recognized in Chilean procedural law, allowing attorneys to refuse to testify about "facts communicated to them confidentially in connection with their profession" (article 360, No. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Privilege is considered a right and a duty of the lawyer.

The duty of confidentiality encompasses a broader obligation, covering "all information relating to the client's affairs that the lawyer has learned in the exercise of their profession" (article 7 of the Professional Ethics Code of 2011). This duty extends beyond mere communications of fact and requires the lawyer to abstain from revealing in any manner any and all client-related information, whether received from the client or obtained through professional services. A less comprehensive concept of the same duty can also be found in the Professional Ethics Code of 1948, covering only information explicitly communicated to the lawyer in confidence due to their profession (article 11 of the Professional Ethics Code of 1948).

It is important to note that the universal and general enforceability of the Professional Ethics Code of 2011 is unclear. From a formal point of view, only the Professional Ethics Code of 1948 is legally enforceable to all lawyers under Law Decree 3.621 of 1981 and can be sanctioned under Law 4.409 of 1928. The Professional Ethics Code of 2011 only formally applies to the affiliates of the Chilean Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados AG) that adopted it. However, in a 2012 ruling, the Supreme Court recognized that the Professional Ethics Code of 2011's provisions apply to all lawyers, regardless of their affiliation. This was acknowledged despite the fact that the Professional Ethics Code of 2011 is not legally binding, which the court considered in its decision. In any event, a violation of both the Professional Ethics Code of 1948 and Professional Ethics Code of 2011 can constitute a criminal offense under articles 231 (for all lawyers) and 247 (for public servants) of the Criminal Code, which sanction lawyers that maliciously damage their clients' interests by disclosing secret (i.e., confidential) information.

Although Chilean law does not explicitly regulate the work product doctrine as it is regulated in other jurisdictions, Chilean law does contain provisions that protect documents and work products. The Code of Civil Procedure allows a party to obtain a judicial order for the other party to exhibit documents, but limits said exhibition to non-privileged information (article 349 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The Code of Criminal Procedure specifically protects materials seized from lawyers' offices, requiring judicial oversight and limiting access to documents covered by professional secrecy (articles 220, 222 and 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Articles 231 and 247 of the Chilean Criminal Code can also apply to sanction the disclosure of documents and work product.

Despite the strong protection of attorney-client privilege, it is considered that a lawyer must breach their duty in order to avoid the commission of a criminal offense. This is confirmed by criminal law, in which procedural protection does not apply when the lawyer is also being investigated for the commission of a crime or when they served to commit the crime.